Jurassic Ark

By Phil Plait | October 20, 2008 10:00 am

So were there dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

(Don’t ask Sarah Palin; her head might explode.)

Some creationists do get their knickers in a twist when asked this question, and pull out all sorts of nonsense about dinosaurs being vegetarians before The Fall (but wasn’t the Ark built after The Fall?).

Now, far be it from me to mock creationists (bwahahahahaha!), but happily, in this case I don’t have to. Artist Stephen Geddes will do it for me. He’s made an awesome wood sculpture that does the trick pretty well, and it’s on display at the Sandra Small Gallery in Covington, Ky… down the road from the creation museum.

Jurassic Ark wood sculpture
I guess the unicorns were just an appetizer.

Now that’s a piece of art I want in my living room.

Tip o’ the Paluxy Tracks to Fark.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Humor, Religion

Comments (178)

Links to this Post

  1. Carona problemática | Rainha Vermelha | November 13, 2008
  1. You must take the there/their/they’re test and pass before I will read you blog again :)

  2. And I, in turn, will remember to spell “your” with an R. Ack!

  3. Law Mom

    Grammerz iz hard.

  4. Dr. Plait, please try to be kinder to the creationists. I know that mockery is easy, but just remember that the American’s With Disabilities Act should apply to them; due to the lack of a functioning brain. Have pity! :P

  5. Sticks

    Maybe they were baby dinosaurs, it does not say they had to all be adult versions of each creature.

  6. Ad Hominid

    You just can’t make up stuff like this:

    Noahs Ark Model Kit the Greatest Seafaring Ship of all Time- (from Megahobby)
    “Our Price: $64.95
    Price will be going up on next shipment! Museum-Quality model kit for the whole family! Highly Detailed Tooling Accurately scaled to the Cubic Display opened or closed. Minicraft’s Noah’s Ark features natural color, detailed wood grained parts throughout. Minicraft’s exclusive Noah’s Ark – Now the whole family can share the Greatest Seafaring Story every told. Megahobby Recommends the Noah Action Figure!”

    My grandson still wants that saddled triceratops from the Creation Museum.

  7. Mano

    Phil, maybe the dinosaurs didn’t get on the ark, and that’s how they got wiped out? :-)

  8. I don’t know, “where their?” *cringe*

    The version of the story I was told as a kid had the dinos extinct long before people showed up, never mind the ark. I guess that’s the “old earth” creationists, though. If you want to pick on young earth creationists there are much bigger problems than T-Rexes refusing to eat the goats because they wanted to hunt :) .

  9. Carey:

    You must take the there/their/they’re test and pass before I will read you blog again

    Well, my dinosaurs weren’t on the Ark, but maybe their dinosaurs were? :-) :-)

  10. ::snort::

    I gotta get me one of those!

  11. Doc

    They might have been baby dinos, but then the question is: Are dinosaurs “clean” beasts?

    If they’re unclean then Noah only took two of each, but if they’re clean then he took seven. Somehow I don’t think I’d want to be trapped in a big wooden building with seven baby T-Rexes (T-Rexi? T-Rexen?) and seven Velociraptors and seven Utahraptors and …

    Then again, even two of each as babies could be very unpleasant. Eggs maybe?

  12. Oops! Man, I hate it when I do that. I actually do pretty well about that, but sometimes my fingers type out what they want just to embarrass me.

  13. madge

    How come “they” get dinosaurs? I want dinosaurs! :)

  14. Bobcloclimar

    You’re conflating two different stories here – Noah’s Ark takes place a very very long time (centuries IIRC, it’s been years since I’ve looked at the time between them) after The Fall (TM), during which the dinos had plenty of time to die out/off. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say there were supposed to be dinos on the ark.

  15. Bar Barian

    This very question was one of the major factors in my “fall” (as they call it)… no one was ever able to give me a sufficient explanation for dinosaurs… the only person who ever came close to a plausible reason turned out to believe the earth was flat… it’s just not rational to hold onto the word for word beliefs of pre-egyptian pagan tribesmen…

  16. Ian

    @Doc:

    Reptiles are never kosher.

  17. David D.G.

    Bobcloclimar: In that case, you haven’t spend much time reading fundie commentaries and discussions on this very subject. Many of them try to claim exactly that, often by saying that Noah could have taken baby dinosaurs, or even eggs!

    ~David D.G.

  18. CSalt

    The ark had a cubic volume of over 1.5 million cubic feet… equal to that of more than 550 boxcars…
    This would have been more than enough space for all of the animals… including young dinos, elephants, hippos, etc…
    As far as food, etc…
    This is where the miraculous takes place, as God himself provides for Noah, his family, and the animals, throughout the time of rain…
    CSalt

  19. Elmar_M

    Hmm, I dont know. Are lizzards or birds kosher?
    I do have to wonder how you would put 2 Brachiosauri, two Apatosauri and then on top of that 2 Mamenchisauri on that Ark an then still have room for thousands of other animals ;) Actually I think that two brachiosauri might have been enough already, but these are the 3 biggest ones that I could think of.
    Of course, maybe Noah could not find any (might be because they had been extinct for 64 million years?) or simply “forgot” about them (you know it is kinda easy to “forget” about a 18 meters tall Brachiosaurus, right?) and thats why they died out? Ahem, sarkasm end ;)
    Love that sculpture though!

  20. Sambal

    ”after The Fall (TM), during which the dinos had plenty of time to die out/off”

    Erm, a fundamentalist Christian once assured me that Gawd would never let anything die out, which he said proved that evolution could never happen. I don’t know if he was reserving the flood as the deliberate dino-killer, or meant that dinos never existed. But obviously he had a channel to the truth, so Bobcloclimar’s suggestion is just as wrong as every fundamentalist wackaloon besides the one that I was listening to. ;)

  21. Jose

    I believe the bible says the dinosaurs rode on the lesser known “Lenny’s Ark”.

  22. Snoopy31415

    So if some dinosaurs were vegetarians before The Fall and weren’t afterward, isn’t it called “evolution”?

    I like how they contradict themselves…

  23. 200 miles… 3 hours away… hmm…

    Okay, who wants to chip in for my gas money so I can drive there and back, bringing pictures with me?

  24. Adrian Lopez

    Poor Noah. Going to all that trouble to save the dinosaurs only to have God exterminate them with a squarely aimed space rock.

  25. TheBlackCat

    @ Ian: Dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than they are to any living reptile, and I would be surprised if birds weren’t kosher.

  26. DGKnipfer

    Yes Noah had Dinosaurs on the ark. You can get one fried down at KFC any time you want. :)

  27. msmith40

    HAHAHAHA!
    A Sarah Palin joke!
    Actually…..it was more of an insult.
    Surprising that a man who deals only in facts (a man such as Phil) would make such a silly, insulting comment.

    Sarah Palin:

    “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

    Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

    “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

    What’s next?
    A few wisecracks regarding Sarah wanting to ban books?
    Better yet, how about a few zingers about her wanting to burn books?

  28. Daffy

    Maybe Noah just brought eggs.

    Think of the omlettes!

  29. TheBlackCat

    @ msmith:

    Sarah Palin: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information….Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

  30. Daffy

    “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information…. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher.”—Sarah Palin to the Boston Globe

  31. msmith40: You should try to do some research before writing such things. She has been quoted as saying she thinks dinosaurs and men walked together. Look up Paluxy Tracks on this very blog.

    And she didn’t want to burn books, just ban the ones she didn’t like. That’s so much better!

    And if it’s true I don’t know if technically it’s an insult. But then, I’m an elitist.

  32. Daffy

    TheBlackCat beat me!

  33. Cheyenne

    palinaspresident.us/

    Check that website out for a laugh. Hint- some things you have to open multiple times.

    The puddle on the desk is the newest addition. Click were the water drops for a special visitor.

  34. Russ

    Phil, you seriously take single sourced quotes seriously? I have a billion quotes about astronauts who say they never landed on the moon, and talked to aliens.

  35. Law Mom

    If people and dinosaurs didn’t coexist, how did Fred get the rocks out of the quarry, hmm?

  36. BS

    Palin is not a creationist!!
    You are the only creationist-creating a controversy that is not there.
    I was going to buy your book today on amazon but not anymore.

  37. David D.

    Phil–

    You are wrong about Palin being quoted re: dinosaurs and men walking together. There is no direct quote, only hearsay.

    Wrong on the banned books, too.

    And I guess Black Cat and Daffy don’t read comments that they don’t agree with.

  38. Bobcloclimar

    Well, apparently I’ve been talking to the wrong creationists (not that I’ve discussed this in depth with very many). There goes my theory about the Flood depositing sufficient mud to fossilize all those dino corpses =O).

  39. Bobcloclimar

    And by the Flood, I meant “The Flood,” the giant raging torrent of water, not an intergalactic sentient zombie parasite. =O)

  40. Captain Swoop

    ‘I was going to buy your book today on amazon but not anymore.’

    Of course you were.

  41. TheBlackCat

    “And I guess Black Cat and Daffy don’t read comments that they don’t agree with.”

    Such as?

  42. David D.

    @BC

    from msmith40′s post:
    <>

    This statement was made AFTER the “teach both” statement to the Boston Globe.

  43. TheBlackCat

    @ David: Did you notice I was specifically responding to msmith’s post? Of course I read it.

    Palin made a clear and straightforward comment (note she used the word “teach”, or “teaching”, twice), then backtracked on it when there was a backlash against it. The fact that she later backtracked does not change the fact that she made the initial comment.

    She specifically said she thought creationism should be taught, but later said she wasn’t going to try force it on school boards. Notice that her backtracking doesn’t say she doesn’t support teaching creationism, just that she won’t try to get it implemented.

    Also, msmith left out one important quote by her that she made during the later backtracking:

    “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

    It sounds to me like she does not just want to allow the discussion, she wants to promote it. This is the “teach the controversy” idea that the Discovery Institute has been promoting lately. Her other comments sound a lot like the “academic freedom” laws that the same group is promoting.

  44. David D.

    I thought that she CLARIFIED her “teach both” statement; you regard it as “backtracking.” I’m not sure what kind of “Backlash” there was; as I understand it, the “teach both” statement was made during a gubernatorial debate, and the “backtracking” statements were made sometime in the next few days.

    She most certainly hasn’t pushed her personal views on the subject (whatever they are) in her official capacity as Alaska governor. Her kids also go to public school, not a private, religious based school.

  45. Davidlpf

    Speaking of ID I actually got a copy of Expelled and watched about an hour of it. Talking about onsided, maybe we should take their approach here. Misquote people, heavily edit what we want to hear.
    (I did not pay for this copy and will watch the rest and probaby delete it after that.)

  46. John Keller

    Don’t forget red state update’s take on this issue,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8MGAsidFI

  47. smith

    I actually can’t tell if these people are serious or not?

    How exactly could a 10,000 year old Earth and the story of Noah’s Ark account for the vast diversity of life on the planet? Let’s hypothetically assume for a moment that a direct-interventionist God created the earth and placed all of the known biological diversity onto the planet in such a way to make it appear the earth was actually much older and that they had evolved over millions of years.
    So, enter the “great flood”. How exactly did Noah collect and preserve seeds, spores, eggs, and/or live specimens of every single organism of the ~10 million biological species of plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, etc? Or was all the biodiversity of life magically created after “The Flood”? And where do the dinosaurs fit in? How exactly do they explain the different geological layers of fossils? How about long-term geological forces of erosion, continental drift, volcano creation? The grand canyon was carved in the last 10,000 years? Niagra falls eroded thousands of meters of rock in the last 10,000 years? Carbon dating is a farce? And what about primitive hominids like home erectus and the neanderthals?

    haha.. .these religious nuts are totally crazy…

  48. James B

    Christians are such plagiarists!

    Here’s a little story from the Sumerian people of Iraq, from around 5000 years ago.

    ===============
    Four of the gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga create the Sumerians (the “black-headed people”) and the animals. Then kings descended from the sky and the first cities are founded – Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larsa, Sippar, and Shuruppak.

    The gods decide to send a flood to destroy humankind. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learn of this. Enki, the god of the waters, warns the hero (Atra-hasis) and gives him instructions to build an ark.

    When the flood comes, a terrible storm rocks the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, then Utu (the Sun god) appears and Zi-ud-sura creates an opening in the boat, and sacrifices oxen and sheep.

    After the flood is over, the animals disembark and Zi-ud-sura lies down in front of An (the sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), who give him eternal life and take him to dwell in Dilmun for “preserving the animals and the seed of mankind”.
    ====================

    I can see their logic…

    Hey dave, check out this stone tablet I just found…
    …I think It would make a great page turner, for that new book we’re writing.
    Yes, it’s good stuff. Cut down on the number of gods a bit, beef up the length of the flood to from 7 to 150 days…
    I reckon we can keep the masses under our control for at least a few thousand years with this sort of material.

    Do you really think they are that stupid?

    You kidding? People believe anything they read these days…

    …and the rest is history.

  49. Jose

    @David D.
    I don’t know what Palin actually believes. The problem is that Palin’s clarifications are carefully worded statements to avoid actually answering whether or not she supports the teaching of creationism in science class. All she’s ever needed to do was say “I don’t support the teaching of creationism in the classroom” and this would all go away.

    And discussing creationism in the classroom has always and will always be allowed. You just can’t teach it as science.

  50. TheBlackCat

    @ David: She said she supports teaching creationism, then she said she wasn’t actually going to try to make it happen. Generally speaking when someone says they support something, it means they are going to support making it happen. Saying you support something and then a few days later say you aren’t going to follow through on that support is something I would consider backtracking. You may disagree, but whatever the case is she does support teaching creationism, but she didn’t try to act on that opinion as governor.

    You have to keep in mind, however, that as governor she really didn’t have much of an option. Teaching creationism was ruled unconstitutional twice, as a governor she can’t go against that. However, as president she would be able to select supreme court judges that would overturn the previous decisions. Therefore what she supports is at least as important as what she actually did, since she had limitations then that she could be in a position to eliminate.

  51. David D.

    @BC–

    As governor, she certainly could have courted and encouraged legislation in support of teaching creationism, but she did not. She certainly could have repeatedly made her views known on the subject, but she did not. I think it says a lot that her actions seem quite different than what most people believe about her. So when you say “when someone says they support something, it means they are going to support making it happen,” that obviously doesn’t jibe with Palin’s inaction on this issue.

    I don’t know–are words more important than actions?

    And I certainly don’t want to get into the backtracking vs. clarifying debate here.

  52. Darth Robo

    >>>”However, as president she would be able to select supreme court judges that would overturn the previous decisions.”

    If I recall correctly, Judge Jones from the Dover trial was a Bush appointee. So, if she tried, she would probably have to appoint someone really dumb. :)

  53. msmith40

    Phil,

    Sarah Palin did-not-want-books-banned, period!

    “…Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

    Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with the librarian (Mary Ellen Emmons) about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.”

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

    It took a few seconds to find this data via Google.

    And please, SOMEBODY provide a link that shows a legitimate quote from Sarah Palin regarding ‘Yes, I think creationism should be taught as science…’

    And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.

    Again, making people aware of theories is not the same as saying ‘this theory is true’, or ‘this theory is false’.

    I have no issues with anyone favoring one candidate over another.
    But to base your views/opinions on rumor – without making any attempt to verify it – is troublesome coming from a ‘man who deals only in facts’.

  54. The standard creationist line is that dinosaurs (as well as everything else) were vegetarians until after the flood. When the circus was allowed out of the Ark…

    God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

    (Gen 9:1-3, NRSV)

    It seems animals became fair game, so to speak, for any that chose to become carnivorous. Presumably the T-Rex was made extinct because he didn’t drain the blood before eating.

  55. msmith40, I never said she banned books. I said she wanted to. That’s what started the whole controversy about the fired librarian.

  56. TheBlackCat

    As governor, she certainly could have courted and encouraged legislation in support of teaching creationism, but she did not.

    If she did it would have be overturned in the first court it came to, likely with the judge requiring the state to pay attorney fees for bringing such a stupid case to trial. The supreme court cases on the issue are simple and straightforward and if she had tried to do anything related to creationism, with the current supreme court, it would be a total rout. Teaching creationism in public school science classes is against the law. Her hands were tied. Things could easily change with a few new justices, however, so that makes her goals very important.

    I think it says a lot that her actions seem quite different than what most people believe about her. So when you say “when someone says they support something, it means they are going to support making it happen,” that obviously doesn’t jibe with Palin’s inaction on this issue.

    Sure it jibes with her reaction. All it might mean is that someone told her that her goals would never survive a court challenge so it was a waste of time. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t want to do it, it doesn’t mean she wouldn’t do it if it was an option, it might be that someone who knows about the law spoke to her about it after the debate. All we know is that she says she wants to do it, but won’t. If she thinks it is such a good thing, which she explicitly and specifically states, why wouldn’t she implement it? To me the most logical conclusion is that she wants to but knows that she can’t…yet.

    I don’t know–are words more important than actions?

    What someone wants to do, and presumably would do if they could, is often more important than what they have done…if what they want to do is illegal. If someone says that want to do something illegal, but then says that they aren’t going to do it, yeah that worries me. The possibility that the only thing holding them back is the law against their actions is very troubling. Especially if they might soon be in a position to change the law and thus be free to do what they really want.

    And msmith40, please read the quote Daffy and I posted immediately after you posted. That is exactly what she said there.

    And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.

    Again, making people aware of theories is not the same as saying ‘this theory is true’, or ‘this theory is false’.”

    This is a well-known Discovery Institute tactic to sneak creationism past supreme court cases against it, the latest in a long series going back decades. When they say “mentioning” it, they expect that it will be presented as a legitimate scientific competitor of evolution. Let me say this straight: there are no other theories out there. Creationism is not science, and mentioning it in science classes alongside evolution gives it credibility that it has not earned. If they came out and said “some people are creationist, but creationism is wrong and goes against everything we know about the universe” then I would be fine with that. But in the real world that wouldn’t happen. There is already enormous pressure on many school boards to teach creationism and/or not teach evolution. If this sort of opening is allowed then it will inevitably lead to the promotion of creationism in many schools.

  57. David D.

    Wrong again, BA–her question about banning books was reported as rhetorical and more of a procedural question (see the article at The Frontiersman, http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/08/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt).

    That is very different from Palin wanting to ban books herself. You actually said “she didn’t want to burn books, just ban the ones she didn’t like.” What specifically were the books that she didn’t like that she wanted banned?

  58. baryogenesis

    @ mssmith40 – The problem as many see it, is the teaching of a variety of “theories”, as if they have equal status to begin with, the whole weight of generations of research behind one, while others are crackpot ideas pulled out of someone’s rear.

  59. Jose

    @msmith40

    And please, SOMEBODY provide a link that shows a legitimate quote from Sarah Palin regarding ‘Yes, I think creationism should be taught as science

    The point is that someone who could be President of the United States should be against the teaching of creationism in science class. If someone thought it was appropriate to teach kids how to bake cookies in math class, I’d question if that person had the judgment to be president as well, even though I might even sign up for that class. I like cookies.

    Whenever Palin’s asked if creationism should be taught in science class, she ducks the question by saying something like “I support the teaching of science in science class” or “I would not push for creationism to be taught in science class.” The first statement still allows her to believe creationism should be taught in school. The second still allows her to support or sign into law legislation that would allow the teaching of creationism in school. Supporting something doesn’t necessarily involve pushing for them.

    And if you’re thinking we’re looking too carefully at what she’s saying, I’ll just remind you that all she needs to do is answer the question with a “no”.

  60. David D.

    @BC–

    The possibility that legislation would not survive a court challenge has not seemed to deter actions in a number of other states, in a variety of settings. I’m not sure that if she was such a good, rabid creationist after all that she would not have used her influence as governor to at least encourage such action (see, for example Jindal in LA).

    I don’t see any evidence that Palin wants to appoint jurists who would allow creationism to be taught in public school; in fact she has explicitly and specifically stated her views to the contrary. I don’t think the VP has much to say in judicial appointments, anyways.

    And you also said: “Especially if they might soon be in a position to change the law and thus be free to do what they really want.” Exactly how would the VP accomplish this? And, again, why didn’t she accomplish this in Alaska, where she was chief executive?

  61. TheBlackCat

    Wrong again, BA–her question about banning books was reported as rhetorical and more of a procedural question.

    Once again, she said that after the issue became publicized. And it looks from that article like they discussed the subject at least three times. The librarian at least has seemed concerned about the discussions.

    The possibility that legislation would not survive a court challenge has not seemed to deter actions in a number of other states, in a variety of settings. I’m not sure that if she was such a good, rabid creationist after all that she would not have used her influence as governor to at least encourage such action (see, for example Jindal in LA).

    She may have simply spoken to a better lawyer.

    I don’t see any evidence that Palin wants to appoint jurists who would allow creationism to be taught in public school; in fact she has explicitly and specifically stated her views to the contrary. I don’t think the VP has much to say in judicial appointments, anyways.

    Who do you think takes over if the president dies in office? Considering McCain’s age this is a very real possibility, and one that should be taken into account when making decisions about who to vote for.

    And, again, why didn’t she accomplish this in Alaska, where she was chief executive?

    A governor does not have the power to pick supreme court justices. The president does. The vice president becomes president if the president dies.

  62. Jose

    @David D.

    in fact she has explicitly and specifically stated her views to the contrary.

    Again, where does she say this? I’m not saying she hasn’t said it, but all the quotes I’ve seen so far, including the ones above, are of the non-answer variety.

  63. Jose

    @David D.

    When Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, was your first thought something like “Who the heck says “Sexual Relations””? Mine sure was. It was a statement specifically designed to allow Clinton to appear to deny an improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky, all without actually lying. Palin’s statements on the teaching of creationism in science class are no different.

  64. David D.

    @Jose–
    “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

    @BC–
    Whether she made the statement before or after the issue became publicized is not relevant; it is her only public statement, and unless you are privy to her personal conversations with the librarian (or are a mindreader), there is no evidence that she personally wanted to ban specific books that she didn’t like.

    “She may have simply spoken to a better lawyer.” Yeah, that’s right–there are only “better lawyers” in Alaska.

    And I’m sorry that you misunderstood me. I never stated that governors appoint SC justices.
    I was referring to the fact that as chief executive in Alaska, she was certainly “in a position to change the law and thus be free to do what [she] really want[s],” much as you claim she would be IF she assumes the presidency.

  65. MarkH

    I say let there be a debate about evolution and creationism in a classroom setting. Let the kids study the information of both “theories” and bring both “sides” to a debate. Then watch as the creationist view get clobbered by all of the scientific evidence available, from geology dating the age of the earth to astronomy dating the age of the universe to biology showing the progression of spieces(sp?) developement over time through the study of fossils and some living oganisms, while the creationist brings the bible. That is a debate I would love to see :)

  66. MarkH

    As I’m reading this post Apocalypse How is on Discovery Channel HD LOL.

  67. MarkH:

    Many people believe that this is what Palin is saying: let there be a debate about the controversy, but don’t change the textbooks. Palin’s father is a science teacher and according to Ms. Palin herself she was taught about evolution at an early age.

    Since this probably won’t be enough for many of you religious Obama believers, I ask you this: She’s been a governor for a year and a half, and a mayor for four beyond that, at any point has she ever introduced legislation or proposals supporting the teaching of creationism? No, no she has not. So basically all you have in the claims that she’s a creationist is that she said some stuff that has been taken out of context several times already.

    It’s pretty sad that people known for the skepticism are so easily led to believe anything even remotely negative about a candidate who opposes the chosen one in Obama. In this regard you folks are just as ignorant and close minded as the creationists you so mightily oppose. You won’t open your minds to the possibility that Obama is just religious as Palin, and therefore ignore more serious scientific political issues such as Obama proposing we scrap human space exploration and turn the money over to the Education Department.

    You are being a horrible skeptic Phil and it’s just too bad.

  68. RL

    If one cares to spend the time (about 50 seconds using Google and waiting for the web page to come up), you can find this transcript quite easily from CBS news.

    “Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

    Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.”

    So, there you go. 1. Evolution is accepted principle and should be taught as such. 2. The answer is the result of a direct question on the matter. That should be enough to settle the question. I left the complete excerpt in full because the rest of the quote indicates that she is what could be classified as a deist evolutionist. That is NOT the same as a creationist or IDer. Biologist Ken Miller is such a person, for example.

    Phil Plait and others on this forum can continue to call her a creationist but by doing so they are ignoring the truth and reality (as they accuse others of doing). If you don’t like someone, I don’t care, but don’t like them for real reasons, not made up ones.

    I think this matter is the result of what seems to me to be a pervasive and growing us versus them attitude on this site. It’s us against the anti-vaxxers, or the IDers, or the creationists, or astrologers, or whoever Phil doesn’t like. Its not enough that they are wrong, they must be mocked and destroyed. Respect for others is fast disappearing if not gone already. From that point its easy to forget ones principles (like always sticking to the truth to make a point and not intentionally distorting things to reach the ends one thinks is right) and act like those you are “fighting” against.

    One of the things I have respected people like James Randi for is that he doesn’t cross that line. He sticks to the facts. Its rare to read or watch comments from him that get personal or make presumptions or distort the truth. And even though I may not agree with him on everything, I do respect his opinion. And applaud his methods.

    I wish this blog had an approach more like Randi’s. Maybe it never did. It seemed more fair when I started reading. Maybe its always been an “us vs the stoopid” kind of site. But as it is, Bad Astronomy has slid way down the charts for me because of the reasons I’ve stated. I offer this feedback honestly with the hope that after some people think about it, things may change for the better.

  69. RL-

    I am sad to say that I think Phil is simply choosing to remain ignorant about anything that would show Palin to be anything less than a stupid creationist bible-thumper.

    Either that or he’s downright lying. I prefer to believe the former simply because I respect his astronomical knowledge so highly.

    Either way, that’s two crappy choices. This is who is replacing Randi at the JREF?

    A liar or someone willfully ignorant? Fantastic.

  70. I had similar thoughts when I drew a cartoon last month:

    noah-and-dinosaurs

  71. Darth Robo

    Is it me, or are people being rather naive in the face of Palin’s comments towards evolution?

    “Evolution is accepted principle and should be taught as such.” is not the same as acceptance of said principle, especially in light of previous comments made about “teaching the controversy” in the past.

  72. Darth Robo

    Can’t even poke fun at fundies anymore without it getting all political…
    :(

  73. Davidlpf

    I still say the McCain campaign will forever be taught how to shot one in one’s foot and Palin is a fifty caliber bullet.

  74. Jose

    @David D.
    I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism.

    In context, all she said was she won’t use a person’s religion or their beliefs on evolution or creationism as factors in determine if someone is qualified to serve on the state school board. Religion is irrelevant, but believing in evolution should be a litmus test as to whether or not someone can serve on a school board or not.

  75. msmith40

    Phil says:
    “I never said she banned books. I said she wanted to. That’s what started the whole controversy about the fired librarian.”

    Again: No. She did not want to ban books. There is no evidence that she ever wanted to ban books.
    Unless you (or anyone) can provide evidence that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books, you cannot use that to discredit her.

    Jose says:
    “The point is that someone who could be President of the United States should be against the teaching of creationism in science class.”

    “Whenever Palin’s asked if creationism should be taught in science class, she ducks the question….”

    But has she been specifically asked that question?
    Has Sarah Palin stated anywhere that creationism should be taught in a science class?

    …..for what it’s worth, I do not believe in creationism. Evolution works fine for me.

  76. Jose

    @RL
    I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools.

    Here she says we should teach evolution in science class. Perfect.

    And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.

    Here she says she that creationism is not part of the curriculum. What she avoids saying is whether she thinks it should be part of the curriculum.

    Science should be taught it science class.

    This is meaningless because she’s never stated whether she considers creationism science or not.

    Do you understand yet? Nobody’s ignoring here statements.

  77. Richard

    Noah: Hey, I had had 8 goats on board. WTF! Only 7?
    Tyrannosaurus Rex: *burp*
    Noah: G*d d**n it!

  78. David D.

    An appropriate quote:

    I remember at an early period of my own life showing to a man of high reputation as a teacher some matters which I happened to have observed. And I was very much struck and grieved to find that, while all the facts lay equally clear before him, only those which squared with his previous theories seemed to affect his organs of vision.

    Lord Joseph Lister

  79. TheBlackCat

    Whether she made the statement before or after the issue became publicized is not relevant; it is her only public statement, and unless you are privy to her personal conversations with the librarian (or are a mindreader), there is no evidence that she personally wanted to ban specific books that she didn’t like.

    The librarian she talked to seemed worried, and she knows far more about what went on then any of us.

    “She may have simply spoken to a better lawyer.” Yeah, that’s right–there are only “better lawyers” in Alaska.

    I don’t understand what you are trying to say. If she asked a constitutional lawyer whether they could teach creationism in Alaska schools, and if she got good advice, and if she listened to that advice, she would not have tried it implement it. It is clearly against the U.S. constitution, as several supreme court cases have stated. However, not everyone has gotten good advice. The school board in Dover got very, very bad advice and ended up paying over a million bucks because of it (it could have been two million but the plaintiffs decided to go easy on them). It all depends on whether the lawyer she asked, or the lawyer she somehow talked to, gave her good advice or bad. This is, of course, assuming she talked to a lawyer.

    And I’m sorry that you misunderstood me. I never stated that governors appoint SC justices.
    I was referring to the fact that as chief executive in Alaska, she was certainly “in a position to change the law and thus be free to do what [she] really want[s],” much as you claim she would be IF she assumes the presidency.

    This is a federal issue, not a state issue. The chief executive of Alaska does not have the power to change federal law, or to appoint justices to the supreme court. This is entirely a federal issue, and nobody in the Alaska state government has any power whatsoever over federal issues.

  80. Jose

    I’ve never really looked at the issue of Palin attempting to ban books before tonight, but is this a fair assessment of the events?

    -The librarian confirms that Palin did ask about banning books in 1996, although she doesn’t recall whether Palin talked about specific books.

    -The Palin Camp concedes that the inquiries were made, but insist it was just curiosity. At the time, Palin’s church was fighting for the removal of at least one book.

    -The librarian stated that she would fight any attempt to ban books.

    -Later that week, Palin fired the librarian. Palin claims that the firing was unrelated to the book banning conversation.

    -Many Wasillans weren’t pleased with this, and public pressure forced Palin to re-hire the librarian.

  81. David D.

    @BC–

    Once again, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I am saying. I never said that as governor she could change FEDERAL laws, I was referring to her power and influence as the chief exec of Alaska to “change” ALASKAN laws to favor teaching creationism.

    Your concern about Palin is that if she reaches the Presidency, she will somehow “change the law” to get what she wants. Yet in her capacity as governor of Alaska, she made NO attempts to achieve similar changes at the State level. None. Zero.

    Please–go back and re-read my posts. They are not hard to understand.

  82. TheBlackCat

    I have a question for people who don’t think Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools: what exactly would convince you that she does? She has said explicitly “teach both”. She said it twice. This is not ambiguous, it is not open to interpretation, it is not taken out of context. It is a direct response to a direct question. The word “teach” has a specific meaning. It does not mean “allow discussion on”, it does not mean “don’t avoid the subject if other people bring it up.” “Teach” means “teach”. So considering we have a direct, unambiguous confession played on live TV, what more could you possibly want?

    The fact that she hasn’t tried to do it is not surprising because it is in direct violation of the U.S. constitution, something that as governor she cannot have any hope of changing but as president she most likely would be able to change. So no matter how much she might have wanted to she couldn’t because it is against the law. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge of constitutional law could have told her that such an effort would have had zero chance of success.

    So when a certain action is illegal and without any hope of success, actions cannot be used to identify someone’s desires. They may have just wanted to avoid the punishment for the illegal action. In the case where the action desired would be illegal I think a clear, unambiguous reply to a direct question speaks far more than a lack of action.

  83. Davidlpf

    Well to be fair to Palin she did not know what the VP did so how she know teaching both in schools would illegal.

  84. David D.

    @Jose–

    Not quite right.

    There is no evidence that ANY SPECIFIC BOOKS were asked to be banned by anyone, including Palin. (What specific book did Palin’s church want to have banned, and exactly how were they “fighting” to have it removed?)

    Palin fired the librarian a few months after the conversations about library censorship occurred; she was immediately re-hired by Palin after public outcry. She had held the post for 7 years, and was quite popular. Unfortunately, it is an appointed post, and she supported the incumbent mayor that Palin defeated. She basically served at the discretion of the mayor. The librarian continued to serve until the end of Palin’s first mayoral term.

    Incidentally, there is no record of any discussion between the “concerned” librarian and the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee. The librarian was actually the head of the Alaska Library Association at the time. One would think that if she was so fearful of Palin’s censorship that this would have sparked some controversy in the Association back then.

  85. TheBlackCat

    Once again, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I am saying. I never said that as governor she could change FEDERAL laws, I was referring to her power and influence as the chief exec of Alaska to “change” ALASKAN laws to favor teaching creationism.

    Your concern about Palin is that if she reaches the Presidency, she will somehow “change the law” to get what she wants. Yet in her capacity as governor of Alaska, she made NO attempts to achieve similar changes at the State level. None. Zero.

    No, you are the one who is not understanding me. She cannot change Alaskan laws to allow teaching creationism because the ban on teaching creationism is a federal ban. This is a federal issue, not a state issue. The Alaskan state government has no say whatsoever in it. It is not within her power to change. Any attempt to do so would be in direct violation of federal law, which in this case supersedes any state law. There is no change that she can make that would make teaching creationism in Alaska legal. None. Zero.

    You are making a big deal out of the fact that she didn’t try do some that she is fundamentally incapable of doing no matter how much she wanted to or how hard she could have tried to do it. It is no different than if if she tried to make her own currency, or tried to establish her own navy, or tried to ban rastafarianism. These are issues she has no control over and no power to change as a governor because they come directly from the U.S. Constitution.

    As president, changing supreme court justices CAN make teaching creationism legal. If she became president she would have the power to change the rules on this issue, power she does not have as governor of Alaska.

    You are so hung up on the fact that she didn’t do something illegal. Trying to teach creationism in U.S. public schools is against federal law! Governors cannot change federal law, especially not the constitution (or its interpretation). Are you really that surprised that she didn’t try do something that is clearly illegal?

  86. Jose

    @David D.
    There is no evidence that ANY SPECIFIC BOOKS were asked to be banned by anyone, including Palin

    Thanks for the corrections, but this seems to be avoiding the point. The specific book or books aren’t the real problem. It’s wanting to ban ANY books that’s the problem. Why would anybody even make such inquiries?

  87. Who raises an issue (library censorship) if that issue had not previously been raised? Sounds like an agenda to me.

  88. @TheBlackCat :
    I have a question for people who don’t think Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools: what exactly would convince you that she does?

    How about a statement where she says “I support teaching creationism in a science classroom.”

    You don’t have one. In fact, you have a quote that says rather unambiguously “Science should be taught in science classrooms”. I’m not sure what else is needed to convince you that Palin DOES NOT promote the teaching of evolution in SCIENCE classrooms.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything in this case.

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous you guys sound trying to fit a circle in a square whole with this? It’s like a bigger straw man than burning man.

    I’m just as annoyed by the creationists as I am by those who will try and push their political beliefs through science and skepticism. You both act irrational and illogical and it’s just sad really.

  89. Correction : I wrote above the following:
    I’m not sure what else is needed to convince you that Palin DOES NOT promote the teaching of evolution in SCIENCE classrooms.

    The above sentence should read : I’m not sure what else is needed to convince you that Palin DOES promote the teaching of evolution in SCIENCE classrooms.

    Apologies for the inevitable misconceptions.

  90. TheBlackCat

    You don’t have one.

    Sure I do. “Teach both.” She said that. Said it twice. In direct response to a question about whether she supports teaching creationism in public schools. Please tell me how it can be any less ambiguous than that.

  91. “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information….Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

    - Sarah Palin, Anchorage Daily News

  92. kuhnigget

    Tman:
    I think you sidestepped Jose’s pertinent comment: that Palin (and others who, perhaps unlike Palin, very clearly promote creationism in schools) use phrases like “only science in science classes,” but then go on to include creationism in their definition of science.
    To be fair, I don’t know if Palin holds that belief. Frankly, what annoys me more in this whole debate, is the behavior of so-called journalists who seem utterly incabable of asking meaningful questions. The transcript of Couric’s interview is a prime example of someone asking questions about subjects they haven’t bothered to fully research.
    If journalists in this country actually bothered to learn their trade, they’d know enough about the subjects they are inquiring about to ask decent questions. That’s how the creationists get away with catchphrases like “teach the controversy.” What controversy, the journalist should ask? There is no controversy…at least not amongst legitimate biologists. Evolution works. Natural selection works. Neither need divinities to make them function. Yet because knucklehead talking TV heads don’t know any better, the creationists get to make that silly claim over and over again.

  93. @Theblackcat: She said “teach both”. But she did not say “teach creationism in science classrooms”. You fail.

    I actually think that that creationism should be addressed in science classrooms as a way to show how unscientific a “theory” such as creationism can be. But thanks to the complete hysteria the subject raises between both sides of the argument good luck with that.

    But here’s your clarity:

    “Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

    Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle.”

    End of the debate. When Palin was faced with a direct choice between evolution being A.) an accepted principle within the scientific community or B.) One of several theories,

    SHE CHOSE A. YOU LOSE. TRY AGAIN.

  94. Tman, the interview continues:
    Couric: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

    Palin: Don’t have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever – kids do it today whether … it’s on paper, in a curriculum or not. Curriculums also are best left to the local school districts. Instead of Big Brother, federal government telling a district what they can and can’t teach, I would like to see more control taken over by our school boards, by our local schools, and then state government at the most. But federal government, you know, kind of get out of some of this curriculum and let the locals decide what is best for their students.

    Tman said :@Theblackcat: She said “teach both”. But she did not say “teach creationism in science classrooms”. You fail.

    Either you’re being incredibly pedantic or reading comprehension is lacking Tman but “teach both” seems to me to mean teach creationism in the science classroom.

  95. Nigel Depledge

    CSalt said:

    The ark had a cubic volume of over 1.5 million cubic feet… equal to that of more than 550 boxcars…

    Wow. I always thought boxcars were bigger than a cube 14′ on each side, but your figures have them occupying a smaller volume.

    Besides, if your figure for the Ark’s size is anywhere near correct (there is some debate because definitions of cubits seem to vary), it will not float for very long. Wooden vessels over a certain size leak a lot because of the torsional stresses applied by the waves. Really big wooden vessels do no more than sink.

    This would have been more than enough space for all of the animals… including young dinos, elephants, hippos, etc…

    The “young dinos” thing is a retcon. It’s a post-hoc fix to an insurmountable problem. It also ignores the phrasing “the male and his mate” which strongly implies sexually mature individuals. (And, incidentally, betrays a prehistoric ignorance of hermaphroditism and asexual reproductive strategies.

    As far as food, etc…
    This is where the miraculous takes place, as God himself provides for Noah, his family, and the animals, throughout the time of rain…
    CSalt

    Another retcon. There is no mention of this in any version of the story that I’ve ever seen, except those propagated by YECs.

    Oh, or were you being satirical…? With creationism, it is impossible to tell.

  96. Grand Lunar

    Sheesh, can’t people make funny statements about other people anymore?

    I refer, of course, to the mass of criticism of the BA’s statement on Palin.

    What’s next, some weepy eyed kid making a YouTube video crying “LEAVE SARAH ALONE!!!”

    Another thing; why is it so many people have a short memory? In case you didn’t get the memo, Phil did state that this is HIS blog, and he has the right to post whatever he wishes. He did make a post specifically explaining his postings on politics and religion in regards of their dealings with science.

    If you don’t like it, DON’T READ IT.

  97. Nigel Depledge

    msmith40 said:

    HAHAHAHA!
    A Sarah Palin joke!
    Actually…..it was more of an insult.
    Surprising that a man who deals only in facts (a man such as Phil) would make such a silly, insulting comment.

    Sarah Palin:

    “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

    Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

    “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

    What’s next?
    A few wisecracks regarding Sarah wanting to ban books?
    Better yet, how about a few zingers about her wanting to burn books?

    So, you approve of students being encouraged to advocate acntiscience during science classes, do you? Why not astrology, too (which ID advocate Michael Behe testified under oath was just as scientific as ID)? And psychic phenomena? And bigfoot? And crystal healing?

    Oh, wait – here’s why not. If the kids spend a whole slabload of time debating nonsense, there’ll be even less time in which they can actually learn something!

  98. Nigel Depledge

    David D said:

    As governor, she certainly could have courted and encouraged legislation in support of teaching creationism, but she did not.

    No, she could not. Teachng creationism in science class has been ruled unconstitutional and therefore illegal. As governor, she could have comitted political suicide, but chose not to (for some bizarre reason!).

    If she became president, she would be in a position to stack the odds in her favour before introducing some kind of “teach the controversy” legislation.

  99. TheWalruss

    I read one explanation that all the animals fit on the Ark was that they were all much smaller before. Only after the Flood dried up and they got off the ship did they take advantage of the bountiful space of the planet to cover all the continents and grow to the size of elephants. This is “micro-evolution” of course, and in the span of 2000 years…

    Sooooo yea – I love how those deer are getting bigger every year!

  100. @shane:

    She said in plain english “evolution is an accepted principle”. What am I being pendantic about?

    And what’s wrong with teaching why creationism is not a scientific theory? I think we SHOULD be having kids talk about this and discuss it in class provided they are doing so from a standpoint of evolution being the accepted scientific principle.

    The problem I have with Phil and others claiming Palin is a creationist is that they are attempting to paint a picture that simply isn’t a true representation of her views, and they are doing so because they disagree with the rest of her politics.

    They are guilty of doing the same things creationists do when they misrepresent the views of their opponents. The sad part is that PHIL SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

  101. Calli Arcale

    James B Says:
    Christians are such plagiarists!

    Here’s a little story from the Sumerian people of Iraq, from around 5000 years ago.

    Hey, it’s not our fault! We got it from the Jews, who swore it wasn’t plagiarized. Not our fault we didn’t have access to ancient Sumerian mythology until modern times. ;-)

    (I jest of course.)

    On a more serious note, most Christians who are Biblical literalists are not concerned about such similarities showing up with other near-Asian oral traditions. After all, to them it only shows there must be some truth behind it if even the unbelievers knew part of the story.

    (Obligatory note: I am not a Creationist. I regard the book of Genesis as metaphorical, not literal, and believe it originated in the way all oral traditions originate.)

  102. Denver Astronomer

    Aren’t the dimensions of the ark in the bible? If so, I wonder if anyone has tried to simply add up the total amount of mass that two of each animal (and all the dinosaurs as well), and see if the boat of x by y by z dimension could even float.

  103. Jose

    @Tman
    No one is claiming or implying that Palin is saying that evolution should not be taught in science classrooms. What were concerned with is that she thinks creationism should be taught along side evolution. There’s currently no ban on discussing creationism now, and there never will be. It just can’t be taught as science. It falls under the same category as discussing something like spontaneous generation or the ether. Today, spontaneous generation is widely regarded as a quaint silly idea from the past, but even it has a lot more going for it scientifically that creationism does.

    When she was running for governor, she stated that she thought both creationism and evolution should be taught in science class. That’s clearly what she meant when she said teach both. When she’s been asked since she became a VP nominee, she’s made statements saying she supports the teaching evolution, but she hasn’t actually said creationism should not be taught as well. She’s used careful wording to sidestep that issue.

    Any questions about her position on the issue are of her own making, and she could easily correct them by simply saying “Creationism should not be taught in science class”, but she hasn’t done that. So stop blaming us for a mess she’s created.

  104. Anyone wishing to actually see for themselves how us Creationists truly answer this standard question click on my name for a link that proves the Truth.

    I wonder how many of the smug and mocking atheists here will have the courage and the honesty to see for themslves by doing this though?

    Still, you are, after all, supposed to be open-minded here & willing to consider the actual evidence – which I’ll note includes millions, even billions of personal eye-witness accounts verifying the existence and Love of the Creator and the Lord Jesus and the best-selling, most accurate book in history.

    Incidentally, note that the majority of the US believes in Christ and God playing a role during the Creation. We’re people not morons & many of us know Christ Jesus personally having accepted Him into their hearts. I’d reccomend you try it!

    Jesus does love you and died to forgive your sins – even your prideful idol-worshipping atheism.

    Idol-worshipping you ask? Yes, atheism is ultimately is worshipping the false idol that all atheists see in the mirror having been mis-guided by the very real prince of lies whispers into falsely thinking their minds superior to the Mind of God who created everything from the dinosaurs to the most distant star to Adam and Eve.

    Here’s a tip atheists:

    God know more and better than you do. He is smarter and wiser than all you biblically predicted “mockers and scoffers” of the last days.

    God knows everything you know and far, far more than you can possibly imagine – and your mind could never cope with or understand all that His does. God really is superior to you and you need to recognize this, humble your rebellious pride and repent! The Eternal Lord our Holy Father will forgive you however dognmatic an atheist you may be if if you truly repent and He is the only path to salvation.

    The Lord Almighty would even forgive Dawkins’ the arch-athiest himself if he would only see the Divine Truth. ;-)

  105. Jose

    @Denver Astronomer
    They have. It’s not even a matter of it not floating. You couldn’t fit all the animals on it in the first place. And that’s without counting any species which are extinct today.

  106. Awaiting moderation?

    It will be interesting to see how much dissent from the evolutionist line is allowed here or whether views that are non-atheist, non-elitist and Christian are actually allowed a fair hearing I think ..

    Incidentally, Creationists too love astronomy as the heavens themselves declare the Glory of God!

    Those of you who are inspired by space travel may recall the true all-American hero John Glenn – the first American to orbit our planet. Like all astronauts, John Glenn was a bible-believing Christian and, if you won’t listen to people as ordinary as me – looking down on us from your “scientific” heights of piled up dogma, – then maybe you’ll listen to what this extraordinary pioneer of spaceflight said in his autobiography ‘‘John Glenn : A Memoir’:

    ““How can anybody prove there’s a God? I said. “I can’t. There’s no mathematical formula or chemical composition that adds up to God, just like there’s no formula for love or hope or honesty. I don’t believe that God is dead. I can’t look around this world and believe that it came out of chance encounters of cosmic debris. But you know God doesn’t have to be believed in to exist.”

    And when faced with a hostile interveiew alongside the atheist Soviet Russian comosnauts Glenn also strongly defended Christianity saying:

    (On Page 447-8 of his Memoir; Glenn & Soviet cosmonaut Gherman Titov May 3rd, @ the third International Space Symposium

    “[Titov ] … also professed the official Soviet policy of atheism, as I learned when we fielded questions at the ends of our presentations. Someone asked’ “In communism you don’t believe there is a God. Did your spaceflight alter that?”

    “Not at all,” the cosmonaut said. “Only now there is proof for the Communist position. I went into space and didn’t see God, so that must mean God does not exist.”

    “Did you see God in space Colonel Glenn?” the questioner asked.
    “I didn’t expect to,” I said “The God I believe in isn’t so small that I thought I would run into Him just a little bit above the atmosphere.”

    Glenn was among and at the top of the most rigourously selected, excellent examples of an American heroes ever. He had “the Right stuff” – and a lot of that “Right stuff” was a beleif in God and being blessed by the Right Stuff from God.

    Not just any “god” either but the Almighty Lord God of the Bible, the Christian God, the only Living God who rose from the dead and still works miracles today.

    Reflect upon that, atheists and bible-haters here and compare yourselves with Glenn and God.

    Are _you_ smarter and better than John Glenn?
    Are you smarter than God!?
    I don’t think so!

    I don’t know whether I’ll be allowed to post this here …
    But delete it or permit it, its truth remains true.

    God is God, God is real and atheism is wrong.

  107. Denver Astronomer

    @Jose

    Ahh, volume. I hadn’t considered that angle (dimension?). :)

  108. Jose

    @Fidelus Astronautica
    I wonder how many of the smug and mocking atheists here will have the courage and the honesty to see for themslves by doing this though?

    I wonder if this smug and mocking pseudo-Christian has any idea how science works? Why does he think we’d be afraid to look at his “evidence”? Why does he think we haven’t seen this already?

    “Still, you are, after all, supposed to be open-minded here & willing to consider the actual evidence – which I’ll note includes millions, even billions of personal eye-witness accounts verifying the existence and Love of the Creator and the Lord Jesus and the best-selling, most accurate book in history.”

    Well, that answers my first question. He doesn’t understand how science works. That’s anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is only valuable in that it may prompt someone to look for scientific evidence. If we gave the weight to anecdotal evidence that you obviously do, we’d need to believe in Bigfoot, alien abductions, Ganesha, and a million other things.

    Incidentally, note that the majority of the US believes in Christ and God playing a role during the Creation. We’re people not morons & many of us know Christ Jesus personally having accepted Him into their hearts.

    Science does not work by majority rule. Any scientist who is also a Christian can tell you that.

    The Lord Almighty would even forgive Dawkins’ the arch-athiest himself if he would only see the Divine Truth.

    If I were to find out definitively that there is a god, and he requires that I think and behave as you do in order to gain entry to heaven, I’ll go to hell on principle.

  109. Jose

    @Denver Astronomer

    Ahh, volume. I hadn’t considered that angle (dimension?).

    That’s it! You nailed it. The inside of the Ark must lead to some other dimension where the size and weight are not an issue. That’s at least as plausible as Fidelus Astronautica’s explanation.

  110. Todd W.

    @Fidelus Astronautica

    How does your post relate to the original topic? I think I’m missing your point. I would, however, like to address a couple of points you made.

    Like all astronauts, John Glenn was a bible-believing Christian

    Could you provide some evidence that all astronauts are bible-believing Christians? I’d wager that there are some who are not.

    Reflect upon that, atheists and bible-haters here and compare yourselves with Glenn and God.

    How many people here are bible-haters? I’m not. I am an atheist, but I have no real strong emotions one way or another regarding the anthology of religious texts called The Bible.

    Are _you_ smarter and better than John Glenn?

    Can’t say. I don’t really know him. I’m sure that in some areas, I am smarter/better, and in others I’m not. That’s really irrelevant to anything in this thread, though.

    I don’t know whether I’ll be allowed to post this here …

    As long as you are respectful, keep the language relatively clean and don’t link to naughty sites, your posts will very likely always be allowed.

    God is real and atheism is wrong.

    Nothing factual in that statement. A lot of philosophy and belief, though. There is no solid evidence that God, or any other deity, exists or does not exist. The existence of a deity is something that currently lies completely outside the realm of science. You can no more prove that God exists than I can prove that God does not exist. We just do not have any tools to examine the issue objectively. Thus far, there is no physical evidence that definitively proves God’s existence. It is purely a matter of philosophy and faith.

    However, if you have evidence that atheism is wrong, other than a collection of texts written millennia ago by humans who lacked a thorough understanding of the physical world around them, please, do, share it. If you are going to make a claim like “atheism is wrong,” please be prepared to back it up with some pretty good evidence. “Because God exists” and “because the Bible says so” are not, by scientific standards, “good evidence.”

  111. @Jose: What part of Palin’s statement that “evolution is accepted scientific principle” is so hard for you to understand?

    You are the one trying to create doubt about her beliefs that she clearly does not have. And she’s right that creationism should be discussed in classrooms. Kids need to know WHY this isn’t a scientific theory.

    You are trying to twist her desire for the debate to be discussed in to an admission that she thinks that creationism is also an “accepted scientific principle” when clearly she states it is not.

    Round hole, square peg.

  112. Greg in Austin

    @Tman

    You said, “And she’s right that creationism should be discussed in classrooms. Kids need to know WHY this isn’t a scientific theory. “

    Why should we single out the Christian version of creation and talk about it in a science class? What about the Hindu version of creation, or the Babylonian, or Egyptian, or any other religious view of creation?

    How much time should be spent discussing alternative ideas vs. evolution? The answer is ZERO. At most, it should take about 30 seconds to say, “Creationism is not science. Period. If you want to talk about it, do it in a philosophy or religious studies class.”

    It is a waste of my taxpayer money to talk to kids about creation, flat earth, a geocentric universe, or astrology in a biology or physical science class.

    8)

  113. @Greg:

    You are completely missing the point. I stated above that the debate should be taught because it is an issue. But as Palin stated, and you and I both agree, it should be taught from the standpoint that evolution is the only scientific explanation for the origins of species, indeed an “accepted scientific principle”. Creationism, be it Hindu/Buddhist/Christian/Islamic/whatever, can be used as a valuable tool to explain WHAT ISN’T a scientific theory.

    Critical thinking is an essential aspect of education, and the earlier kids can understand this, the less problems they will have later.

  114. Greg in Austin

    @Tman,

    It is not a debate, and should not be “taught” in a science class.

    Sarah Palin has said, on record, that she thinks children should be taught both sides of evolution vs. creationism. The only place in school where children are taught evolution is in Biology or Physical Science. Religious views have no place in a science class and shouldn’t even be discussed.

    The original topic of this discussion concerned the Creation Museum, which tries to promote the idea that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. That is completely contradictory to current scientific evidence. The only reason anybody wants creationism taught in schools is because current evolutionary theory completely contradicts the Bible, and that does not sit well with some Christians.

    So I think you missed my point. Creationism is not science, and should not be taught in a science class. Just like we don’t teach children about Zeus, Thor, or Ra in biology, neither should we teach them about God.

    8)

  115. Jose

    @Tman
    What part of Palin’s statement that “evolution is accepted scientific principle” is so hard for you to understand?

    What part of “That statement says nothing about whether she believes creationism should be taught in the classroom” don’t you understand?

    How many different ways can we explain to you how Palin’s responses to the questions are non answers? Honestly, do you even read peoples responses, or do you just see a few key words, get all huffy, and start typing.

    And once again, there is currently no ban on discussing creationism now in science class, and there never will be. It just can’t be taught as science. I’ve said that three times now, and you keep harping on it like it like you’re making a good point.

  116. Buzz Parsec

    I demand that in meteorology classes, we teach both sides of the lightning debate: Thor or Zeus?

  117. @greg & Jose: You both continually avoid Palin’s admission that evolution is the only acceptable principle from a scientific standpoint. You both continue to try and manipulate other quotes of hers to somehow contradict what she clearly stated as fact.

    Once Palin answered that the only acceptable scientific principle is evolution this debate should have been over. But instead you both continue to paint her as something she isn’t.

    I’m done trying to teach this pig to sing.

  118. Greg in Austin

    @Tman,

    I accept that Palin says evolution is the only principle that is currently taught in schools. That does not equate to her not believing in creationism, nor does it mean she won’t try to change the status quo.

    That also does not change the fact that many people, yourself included, believe we should “teach the controversy” where there should be none.

    8)

  119. Apparently I’m not done. Oh well.

    @Greg: Palin says that evolution is the only acceptable principle. That’s EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD WHAT SHE SAID.

    Again, teach ABOUT the controversy in order to show why there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy. I WANT the younger generation to know WHY creationism is an UNACCEPTABLE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE. Just knowing that evolution works isn’t enough. They should be able to demonstrate why evolution works and why creationism doesn’t from a scientific standpoint.

    How about I say this ONE LAST TIME: I think we SHOULD be having kids talk about this and discuss it in class provided they are doing so from a standpoint of evolution being the accepted scientific principle.

  120. Todd W.

    @Tman, et al.

    Perhaps this will help clear up the discussion. According to the York Daily Record (story not available any longer at the YDR site, but available at Darwinia(dot)com), Obama said:

    “Intelligent design is not science,” he said at a town hall event in Illinois. “I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry,” he told the York Daily Record.

    Obama’s statement is very definite and clear. No mincing words.

    McCain said:

    “I happen to believe in evolution,” he has said. “I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not.”

    McCain’s statement is pretty clear, but not all that definitive.

    From the Couric interview, Palin said:

    Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

    Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught in science class.

    Palin’s comment states simply that evolution is an established principle (not the only acceptable principle). It does not answer whether it should be taught as one of several theories. It does not say anything about whether or not creationism/ID should be taught in the science class. The “Science should be taught in science class” bit seems to suggest that creationism should not be, but it really is not clear. Now, the question was not the right question to ask to clear this up. How about her interview with Sean Hannity:

    HANNITY: Did you only want to teach creationism in school and not evolution?

    PALIN: No. In fact, growing up in a school teacher’s house with a science teacher as a dad, you know, I have great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.

    Well, again, that says that she thinks evolution should be taught, but again misses the right question: should creationism/ID be taught as science in the science class? She has said in the past that she is a proponent of teaching both, but that she would not push creationism, leaving it up to the local board.

    So, it would probably be fair to say that she does believe in creationism and that she thinks that evolution does belong in the science class. What remains unclear, because, I think, the right question has not been asked, is whether she thinks that creationism is something that belongs in the science class as science. She is clear that discussion of it should not be shut down if it comes up. If a local school board decides to add it to the curriculum, it appears that she would support their decision. Does anyone have any quotes that directly address the questio we’re all arguing?

  121. Greg in Austin

    @Tman,

    You don’t have to shout. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

    I don’t think we should waste time in a science class talking about Thor, God of Thunder, throwing lightning bolts down upon men with his mighty hammer. Its not forbidden, or against any rules. However, I personally think it is a waste of my tax dollars, and definitely a waste of the students’ time.

    I’ll ask you again: How much time should we spend discussing this in a science class?

    8)

  122. kuhnigget

    “Again, teach ABOUT the controversy in order to show why there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy. ”

    But why try and do that in a SCIENCE class? The “controversy” (which doesn’t exist except in the minds of creationists) is not science. If anything, any discussion about it would belong in Social Studies, or Civics, or some other class. Yet you don’t hear the creationists – and Governor Palin – saying that’s where it should be taught. They want it in the science classes. Because they believe it is science.

  123. Greg in Austin

    On a related note, John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate for many reasons. I believe some of these reasons are:

    * Having a woman as VP is as big a deal as having a black man as President. It hasn’t happened yet, and many people who would have voted for Hilary Clinton would vote for Sarah Palin just because she is a woman.
    * A majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are Christian, in one flavor or another. Sarah Palin would naturally want to earn their votes. It would be in her best interest to appeal to the majority.

    Perhaps she has avoided a direct answer to these questions in order get more votes. If more and more religious Americans think its OK to teach creationism, ID or whatever as an alternative to evolution, then certainly Sarah Palin would at least appear to agree with that herself.

    Just my opinion.

    8)

  124. @Todd W.: So you show me a quote where Palin says “I have great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes”, and you now want me to question whether or not she thinks that creationism is something that belongs in the science class?

    Are you even reading what you write? It’s just amazing the amount of spin you guys can come up with.

    @Greg & Kuhnigget:

    I think that an excellent way to help students properly define exactly what constitutes a scientific theory is for them to demonstrate why creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory. And this absolutely should be taught in science classes, for two reasons. One, it teaches them to examine the issue from a critical perspective so they better appreicate what makes scientific understanding so important, and two, it breeds generation upon generation of kids who already know that creationism isn’t science thus negating the need to fight back against creationism.

    Who knows, maybe some of these same kids will end up enlightening their parents.

  125. kuhnigget

    @ Tman:

    I buy that…sort of.

    But why creationism? Why not flat earth theory? Or Plasmocity or whatever the plasma geeks call their “science”? And as others have stated, why Christian creationism? Why not Australian aboriginal dreamtime? Or Navajo cosmology?

    Once you open the gates, where does it stop?

  126. Jose

    @Tman
    Todd W. brings up a good point. Why don’t you think we’re hammering McCain like we’re hammering Palin on this issue?

    The answer is that he hasn’t dodged the question. You’re the one that keeps misinterpreting what she’s said so that it says what you want to hear.

    I personally hate McCain. I think he’s a dirtbag who would make a terrible president. But I’m not going to manipulate his quotes to serve my own means, and I won’t do that for Palin either.

    I don’t hate Palin. My guess is she’s probably a fairly nice lady who would also happen to make a terrible president. But I also think she supports teaching (not discussing) creationism along side evolution in the classroom. That’s based on the fact that she said as much, and the fact that she’s now using very specific language that’s designed to fool people into thinking she’s said something she hasn’t. By all appearances she’s succeeded.

  127. Darth Robo

    From the afore mentioned Anchorage Daily News article:

    >>>”Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

    Palin’s own words. No mention of whether she endorses one over the other. No mention of whether she is aware that creationism is far from scientific. She DOES appear to think there is a “debate”, when in actual fact, there is none.

    >>>”I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t HAVE to be part of the curriculum.” (emphasis mine)

    Doesn’t sound so bad, but again, avoids the issue of whether she thinks creationism has any validity. This is also NOT an objection to teaching creationism.

    >>>”It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

    Again, vague. One may even be left with the impression that with all these “theories out there” that COULD imply alternate theories to evolution – despite the fact there are none.

    >>>”My dad did talk a lot about HIS theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’ ” (emphasis mine)

    Would I be reading too much into this sentence if I thought she didn’t sound convinced?

    >>>Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, “I believe we have a creator.”

    I’m sorry, what? But that wasn’t the question, was it? Many Christians accept evolution AND believe in God. What does Palin think? We just don’t know, do we?

    >>>”She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. “I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,” she said.”

    Again, avoids the issue. Does she think there’s a conflict between evolution and religion? She doesn’t seem to want to say.

    From the Couric interview:

    >>>”Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

    Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle.”

    So she accepts that evolution should be taught because that’s what the scientific community says. She STILL does not clarify whether or not SHE accepts it, or if other “theories” are also valid.

    >>>”Couric: Should creationism be allowed to be taught anywhere in public schools?

    Palin: Don’t have a problem at all with kids debating all sides of theories, all sides of ideas that they ever – kids do it today whether … it’s on paper, in a curriculum or not. Curriculum’s also are best left to the local school districts. Instead of Big Brother, federal government telling a district what they can and can’t teach, I would like to see more control taken over by our school boards, by our local schools, and then state government at the most. But federal government, you know, kind of get out of some of this curriculum and let the locals decide what is best for their students.”

    Now THAT part is quite scary. Local school boards and state government before federal government. Given the fact that some local school boards have very recently and still even now are trying to get creationism taught in schools, or the “teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution” language into the lesson plans (as originally conceived by the DI), this is a TERRIBLE idea.

    Conclusion: True, there is no firm way to tell if Palin is a full-on fundie whacko or not; her answers have been very ‘political’. Certainly ambiguous. But she does seem to support the teaching of “both sides”, and she even thinks that local school boards should decide what is and what isn’t science.

    Obama was clear in his answer. So was McCain. What about Palin? Perhaps one day, we’ll find out…

  128. TheBlackCat

    She said “teach both”. But she did not say “teach creationism in science classrooms”. You fail.

    The question was whether they should teach alternatives to evolution, such as creationism and intelligent design, in public schools. Her answer was to “teach both”. She then goes on to specifically discuss creationism. You fail.

    I actually think that that creationism should be addressed in science classrooms as a way to show how unscientific a “theory” such as creationism can be. But thanks to the complete hysteria the subject raises between both sides of the argument good luck with that.

    As I already said, I think that would be fine if it actually happened. But it wouldn’t.

    But here’s your clarity:

    “Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?

    Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle.”

    End of the debate. When Palin was faced with a direct choice between evolution being A.) an accepted principle within the scientific community or B.) One of several theories,

    SHE CHOSE A. YOU LOSE. TRY AGAIN.

    Notice that she does NOT say she doesn’t want to teach creationism, she only says she thinks evolution should be taught as “an accepted principles”, not “the accepted principle”, not “the only theory available”. It was a poorly worded question that allowed her to give the total non-answer she gave.

  129. @ Jose:

    “I wonder if this smug and mocking pseudo-Christian has any idea how science works? Why does he think we’d be afraid to look at his “evidence”? Why does he think we haven’t seen this already?”

    Because you ask questions that are already answered on the site, I’ve linked to. Indeed, just about every possible question is answered on the site I linked to – check out their FAQ page now linked to my name-click to have the true answers to the question which you mockingly asked. You may be surprised – Creationist are smarter than you think. Evolutionists in general think they are smarter than they really are – it goes with their false pride – and we all know that pride goeth before the fall! ;-)

    I think you are afraid to hear the other side of this debate and to open your minds and hearts towards your Saviour because you have a Satan-corrupted spirit of rebellion and hard-heartness towards the Almighty Creator God within your souls. You refuse to look because you fear the Truth. Prove me wrong if you dare!

    Jose: “Well, that answers my first question. He doesn’t understand how science works. That’s anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is only valuable in that it may prompt someone to look for scientific evidence. If we gave the weight to anecdotal evidence that you obviously do, we’d need to believe in Bigfoot, alien abductions, Ganesha, and a million other things.”

    Anecdotal evidence? Eyewitness testimony llike Dawrin’s reports and the time-tested heart-changed word of God? Hardly! I may notbe ascientific genius but then God often chooses the simple and humble over those whothink themselves smart. Hechose Peter and the fellow fishermen tobe His disciples NOT the elite “Intelligentsia” of the time – and whose names and whose words do we remember today? Not the learned scholars who tried to trick the Lord Himself but rather those who humbly followed in His footseps.

    Jose: “Science does not work by majority rule. Any scientist who is also a Christian can tell you that.”

    Ah but how does America work? That’s right its a DEMOCRACY “by the people, for the people” – where theMajority view is respected. America is NOT a “Scientocracy” run “by the scientists for the scientists” and I along withmost patriotic Americans thank the Lord for that.

    When discussing the Creation are not talking here about the latest dubious scientific guesses or computer simulations or theories. We are talking about the American people who, by and large, belive the Bible and put their faith in Almighty God and the Risen Christ NOT the almighty atheist Dawkins or his flock of juvenile mockers of God’s Word.

    Atheists do NOT want the people to be taught God’s truth – theywould rather deprive children of Truth and Salvation – because they themselves rebvel against it. Is this not selfishness and arrogance of the worst order?

    Jose: “If I were to find out definitively that there is a god, and he requires that I think and behave as you do in order to gain entry to heaven, I’ll go to hell on principle.”

    Jose, you speak of what you do not understand.

    Don’t worry you WILL find out that there IS a God and that He is indeed the God of Abraham and Moses, Noah and Elijah, Christ and Paul the apostle. I pray you discover this before your soul departs this world and that you do NOT face Eternal Damnation but come to repentence and seek the forgiveness for your sins that Christ Jesus offers you.

  130. Fidelus Astronautica, what you are doing is called proselytization. What you consider to be the “truth” some of us refer to as fairy tales with no greater validity than Aboriginal Dreaming, Norse Legends or The Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Thankfully the US, and most western democracies, are secular democracies. That is they aren’t theocracies, or scientocracies for that matter. They try to stay neutral on matters of faith. Have you never heard of the tyranny of the majority? You have every right to whatever you believe but the second you try and impose your beliefs on me or anyone else you cross the line. That is why we have the protection of secularism. It goes both ways. It protects me from you and it protects you from… I dunno… sharia law.

    I agree with Jose. If your god exists and it expects us to act in accordance with what is written in your bible I also would go to hell on principle. You talk about the arrogance of atheists. We, by definition, are without belief. That is all. The smug self satisfied arrogance of christians though defies belief. They seem to get off on the possibility of damnation and eternal suffering – not for them of course.

  131. TheBlackCat

    @ Fidelus Astronautica: Alright, I read your article.

    from the text, we know that Noah did not need to carry plants, sea creatures and insects as passengers

    If this were the case almost all land and freshwater arthropods, land plants, and all freshwater fish would have died out during the flood.

    Using “kind” to mean “genus” is completely made-up. Also, foxes, coyotes, and wolves are not from the same genus. Basically the 8,000 number is just pulled out of thin air, as is the 55 dinosaur pairs. According to NAS, there were probably 900-1,200 dinosaur genera alone, and more than 55 dinosaur families, so the 55 number is completely random. There are another 1,200 or so living mammal genera, and probably several times that which are extinct.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=54797
    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinoclassification/Families.shtml
    http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/

    So basically it is just a lot of numbers plucked from air with little rhyme or reason, and would still lead to the extinction of most of the species on Earth.

  132. Or, to sum up my previous post, what Davidlpf said. Dontcha hate it when someone can sum up in one word word what you spend 10 minutes composing?
    ;-)

  133. kuhnigget

    Fidelus, why are you here? What could someone like you, who has all the answers, possibly get out of a blog like this one?

    Based upon the content and tone of your posts, you aren’t intested in questioning, or science, or skepticism, or any of the things this blog is about.

    So why? To call people names? To pass judgement on people? To pretend that you’re better than others?

    Maybe you should read that book of yours again. Try Proverbs 16:5.

    And then go away, sir. Just go away.

  134. Davidlpf

    couple of other phrases
    judge not that ye be not judged
    or people in glass houses should not throw stones.

  135. @ Todd W.:

    “@Fidelus Astronautica – How does your post relate to the original topic? I think I’m missing your point. I would, however, like to address a couple of points you made.”

    My post addresses the topic of the mockery of God and His Creation and the Truth of the Bible that this whole topic is about. The Bad Astronomer (& the Sinful, Prideful astronomer too methinks!) is mocking and scoffing at the Holy Bible and denying the Truth that God Created the Universe. That deserves to be repudiated as well as pitied. Like the other atheists and evolutionists here, he seems to feel that God and God’s Word should be mocked and denied and that he & the other atheists are smarter than the One who Created Everything and Knows Everything; the Omniscient and Omnipotent Almighty Eternal Lord of the Bible!!

    This Atheist Delusion is both pathetic and harmful. The price of holding such false beleifs as idol-worshipping prideful atheism is Eternal Death and the Destruction of your Soul. That is not threat just the Truth. Personally, I very much hope that one day you are led to repent and are Saved and do NOT suffer such a fate.

    Todd W: “Could you provide some evidence that all astronauts are bible-believing Christians? I’d wager that there are some who are not.”

    Go on then name for me please just one Mercury or Apollo astronaut who was an atheist!

    I’m sure you’ll find not a one of our great astronauts – who were selected as the very best Americans of their time; the ideal specimens of physical and mental fitness, believed in the empty satan-inspired delusion that is atheism and evolutionist scientism but rather believed in the Faith of their Fathers that blessed and won America – Christianity.

    As well as Glenn who was a devout Christian as already noted at least two of the Moon-walkers – Jim Irwin & Charles Duke left NASA for the Church and became Christian Preachers after walking on the Moon. I understand at least one of these men personally helped Dr Phil Plait with this blog and I wonder at his ingratitude towards him by mocking his Faith.

    ToddW: “How many people here are bible-haters? I’m not. I am an atheist, but I have no real strong emotions one way or another regarding the anthology of religious texts called The Bible.”

    Clearly the BA must be to post such an insulting derisive post as the one that starts this thread. To deny Gods Word is True and to falsely claim it is false, to alledge that we had monkeys NOT Almighty God for our Creator is to show that you have rebelled against and therefore hate the Bible.

    Todd W: answered the question “Are _you_ smarter and better than John Glenn
    by saying :

    “Can’t say. I don’t really know him. I’m sure that in some areas, I am smarter/better, and in others I’m not. That’s really irrelevant to anything in this thread, though.”

    Well were YOU put through the rigorous tests and examinations required to become an astronaut? Twice at that, first as a young man and then in your 70′s? Have you journeyed into space representing America’s freedom and democracy against the totalitarian evil might of the atheist Communist Soviet Empire? No? I didn’t think so.

    I’m NOT saying that you’re bad or stupid – although many evolutionists rudely attack Creationists as being such. Almost nobody alive is as great as the very best all-American hero like Glenn or, for that matter, Senator John McCain and Alaskan Governor Sara Palin! I’m certainly not myself nor do I claim to be. I’m just your average “Joe Sixpack” clinging -quite rightly I may add – to my religion and my guns as Obama so patronisingly described us American people.

    However, what I will say is that people like Glenn who have achieved such awe-inspiring things through the Blessing of God, who have so well demonstrated their fitness, skill and intelligence may have something of worth to add and to say. Such notable Christians demonstrate through their deeds that Christ lives within them. It is worth considering their faith and what they say because they have experienced and done so well. We can and should learn from them. Their words mean more than any anonymous blogggers like you or, yes, even me.

    Todd W: On my saying ‘God is real and atheism is wrong.’ – “Nothing factual in that statement.”

    Everything is factual in that that statement!

    Gods existence IS a fact whether you’d like to accept it or not.
    That God IS the Creator and Created the Universe is also True Fact and that evolutionism is wrong again is a fact – whether atheists like you like it or not.

    I hope to see McCain become our next President and, in due course, Sara Palin become our President too and in Jesus’ name to have the Biblical Truth and not mere evolutionist theory taught to our children.

    Unlike the self-appointed, ordinary-people-loathing atheist elite that are so prominent here, I do not wish to see our nation further corrupted and brought low by that inexperienced, egotistical, terrorist supporting, God-hating, anti-life, pro-sodom(y), quasi-Muslim, Barack HUSSEIN O_b_AMA.
    That name and BHO’s views are also Btw. FACT.

    God blesses America, atheism, like satan who is the ultimate source of atheist lies, curses it.

    Oh yes, that too is fact. As well as being philosophy & as well as being belief.

    You want proof? Just look deep inside your heart and conscience and pary for Jesus to speak within you. Look at the site I’ve linked to which has answers for all your questions and evidence galore.

    If you love America, I hope you and others will listen to me & more to great heroes like John McCain, John Glenn, Jim Irwin and Charles Duke.

  136. @ kuhnigget: “Fidelus, why are you here? What could someone like you, who has all the answers, possibly get out of a blog like this one?”

    For the astronomy and space news, and to answer the lies told by the athiests who think so cleverly yet so unwisely.

    Kuhnigget: “Based upon the content and tone of your posts, you aren’t intested in questioning, or science, or skepticism, or any of the things this blog is about.”

    Nor are the fundamentalist atheists here – not really. They are NOT skeptical about their atheism and unbeleif, they ignore the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design and the Creator, they mock what oters hold sacred and taunt and deride those who disagree with them.

    “So why? To call people names? To pass judgement on people? To pretend that you’re better than others? ”

    No. I too am a Sinner, I am NOT perfect and make no pretence of being so. I try to do the right thing by God and my country, try to live well and be an example. God judges, I pray and hope and try my best to be my best. Jesus helps me in this but I am an ordinary fallen mortal man like others.

    kuhnigget: “Maybe you should read that book of yours again. Try Proverbs 16:5.”

    Thankyou. I will. I read the Bible every day & believ what it tells us all. Do you?

    “And then go away, sir. Just go away.”

    Nice to see how welcoming and open to seeing the other side of the issue you so-called skeptics and scientists are. Not!

    The evolutionists claim they have all the facts and truth on their side.
    Why then do they seem so scared of sharing a different view which the Almighty God himself has given us? If God is not real and did NOT Create the Universe as they claim then they would be right and have nothing to fear. Why then vilify those that preach Gods Word?

  137. Fidelus Astronautica, your concern has been noted. We’re all going to hell. You’re not. Thank you. Good bye Troll.

  138. Davidlpf

    First most of Gleen qualifacations for going into space were physical not intellectual.
    Obama is christian not muslim, and calling a person a muslim by a name inherited from his father is not factual. Jindal the governer of LA parents are hindus and was on the short list for the same position as Palin.
    God cannot be proven or not proven so outside of religion.
    McCain was a hero for what he Vietnam and no one can deny that. Glenn, Irwin and Duke were heroes for being astronauts. Also beleiving in god does not exclude knowing evolution is how life came about on earth and none of the wikipedia entries on any of three say the support creation. Irwin and Duke have degrees in science and engineering.
    One of my ex co-workers is eldar at his church and knows evolution is correct.

  139. Jose

    @Fidelus Astronautica
    If what you call god does indeed exists, and it’s more concerned with whether or not I believe in or worship it, and not how I live my life, then that’s not god. It may be some kind of petty, loser demon, but it’s not god.

    check out their FAQ page now linked to my name-click to have the true answers to the question which you mockingly asked.

    I did. There’s nothing new there. I grew up with those answers, and they all boil down to silly. I’ve even read that Bible thingy several times. It was really weird. It was supposed to be the word of god, but it was full of all these internal inconsistencies that made its infallibility impossible. But that was actually a good thing, because that thing I’d always called “god”, turned out to be some sort of hellish monster.

  140. @shane: “Fidelus Astronautica, what you are doing is called proselytization. What you consider to be the “truth” some of us refer to as fairy tales with no greater validity than Aboriginal Dreaming, Norse Legends or The Epic of Gilgamesh.”

    Christ speaks to hundreds of millions of people all around the globe every second and is part of their lives. Jesus Christ rose from the Dead after being crucified and was seen afterwards by multiple eyewitness testimony -if Christ had NOT truly Risen, then Christianity would have perished back in 30 AD and he would have been just one more false Messiah – but He was seen and is seen today because He is Real. Unlike the Dreaming, Unlike Thor, unlike Mohammad, unlike tehHinduand Greekpantheons. As Christians we have the Real, the Living God, the Risen Christ to prove our Faith True.

    There is evidence – to learn what it is, speak seriously to any true Christian and they’ll willingly tell you. Their lives and the very real very positive changes in them will shout it out for all the world to see. Christ changed my life. I was Born Again in Him.

    “Thankfully the US, and most western democracies, are secular democracies. That is they aren’t theocracies, or scientocracies for that matter. They try to stay neutral on matters of faith. Have you never heard of the tyranny of the majority? You have every right to whatever you believe but the second you try and impose your beliefs on me or anyone else you cross the line. That is why we have the protection of secularism. It goes both ways. It protects me from you and it protects you from… I dunno… sharia law.”

    Christians do NOT have Sharia law – that would be Islam – you know Barack Hussein Obama’s chosen if secret faith. The faith of Osama bin Laden and our other terrorist enemies. That’s why BHO hates the God of ordinary people and why he secretly hates America. There are no Christian suicide bombers although, yes, there are misguided people who are deceived by satan but claim they act for Christ.

    America, despite its self-destructive anti-Christian liberal media and judges is a Christian Democracy -the words are not incompatible!

    In the USA you are free to disbelieve -you are also wrong to do so. Legally we may be secular but the American people are, 80 % at least Christian. We were founded by Christians under God and I pray we remain so. We forget the Lord at our Peril.

    Children should be given a choice to see for themsleves whether the evidence supports Creationism or evolution. NOT given only one side of the story by atheist scientists who have already rejected God’s Word.

    “I agree with Jose. If your god exists and it expects us to act in accordance with what is written in your bible I also would go to hell on principle. You talk about the arrogance of atheists. We, by definition, are without belief.”

    Being without belief is itself a belief. It is a rejection of God and a worshipping of ones self over worshipping God. It is a rebellion against the Creator God and it is futile and empty. Knowing Christ gives our lives meaning – without it, following our sinful desires we end up drunk and drugged, weak and depressed and lost and bewildered. Life without Christ is Hell on Earth, I know, I’ve been there. Praise Christ Jesus that I found Him – I pray that you and Dr Phil Plait and,even the uber-atheist Dawkins himself will one day find Him too!

    “That is all. The smug self satisfied arrogance of christians though defies belief. They seem to get off on the possibility of damnation and eternal suffering – not for them of course.”

    Not true. See above.

    And now I’m going to bed. I hope you will consider my words fairly without dismissing them out of hand based only on your misunderstanding and hatred for Christianity and the Creator God.

  141. Jose said : “But that was actually a good thing, because that thing I’d always called “god”, turned out to be some sort of hellish monster.”

    I’ve read that book and it seems to me that the Prince of Darkness gets a bad rap. All the killing, infanticide, genocide and plain nasty stuff comes from Jehovah. Name one act that poor old Satan is responsible for? Tempting a couple of people? With knowledge for Odin’s sake. Oooooooh…
    *shakes in boots*

  142. Darth Robo

    @Fidelus Astronautica

    >>>”In the USA you are free to disbelieve -you are also wrong to do so.”

    Wow. I love your idea of “freedom”

    >>>”I hope you will consider my words fairly without dismissing them out of hand based only on your misunderstanding and hatred for Christianity and the Creator God.”

    Okay, let’s consider them fairly:

    >>>”My post addresses the topic of the mockery of God and His Creation and the Truth of the Bible that this whole topic is about.”

    There are many who don’t believe, but still don’t “hate” God. There are also those who accept modern science, including evolution AND believe in God. Now, there is one (well I’m just showing the one for now) problem with the site you linked to. Here:

    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/

    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
    2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    In other words, the Bible comes before scientific evidence. Have you heard of critical thinking? Have you applied that to the Bible? Are you aware that the Bible is simply a book written by MEN? Flawed, fallible, human men. Just like every other sacred text from every other religion. Also the link shows that they (and you) have come to your conclusion before weighing in on the evidence.

    Now, is there any reason that The Lord God our “Creator” could not have used evolution to bring us here? Besides a literal interpretation of ancient superstitious texts? Why do you insist on placing limits on The Almighty?

  143. Jose

    @Fidelus Astronautica
    Legally we may be secular but the American people are, 80 % at least Christian. We were founded by Christians under God and I pray we remain so.

    And thank those Christians chose to write a constitution that closely parallels Islamic law in so many ways, and not amoral, Old Testament, Biblical law.

  144. Jose

    @shane
    Name one act that poor old Satan is responsible for?

    You’re forgetting the time satan goaded that poor weak minded god into destroying the life of that sweetheart of a man named Job.

  145. This last one is for you Blackcat,

    “Notice that she does NOT say she doesn’t want to teach creationism, she only says she thinks evolution should be taught as “an accepted principles”, not “the accepted principle”, not “the only theory available”. It was a poorly worded question that allowed her to give the total non-answer she gave.

    Did you even read the question? She was asked whether or not evolution was the only acceptable scientific principle, not ONE OF SEVERAL POSSIBLE THEORIES, and she said yes, it should be taught as an accepted principle.

    This isn’t a great question, I agree, but I don’t see how one could say that it means she will threaten the teaching of evolution as AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE.

    Now I will light myself on fire for wasting this many minutes of time arguing over some stupid interview with Perky Katie.

  146. Jose

    @Tman
    You keep changing quotes so they support your position. Do you think we’re to dumb to notice?

  147. Nigel Depledge

    msmith said:

    And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.

    No. No, it isn’t OK. This is because it is a lie. There is only one scientific theory that explains the origins of the diversity we see in living things.

    Anything else that masquerades as an equivalent theory is either a pack of lies or a pack of ignorance propagated by individuals who are well-meaning but sadly misguided.

    So, to state or imply that there are alternative scientific theories explaining the origin of biological diversity is just plain wrong. It does not educate kids, it causes confusion.

    Again, making people aware of theories is not the same as saying ‘this theory is true’, or ‘this theory is false’.

    No, it is not the same thing, but at the very least it implies that we are presently unable to distinguish which one of the competing theories is the truth.

    However, when it comes to the origin of biological diversity, we know how it happens. Even if our existing theory of evolution is wrong or incomplete, the way it has stood the test of time proves that at the very least it represents a close approximation of reality.

    The scientific debate was settled about 100 years ago.

    There is no credible alternative theory.

    There aren’t “two sides”.

    It really is that simple.

  148. Nigel Depledge

    I’m going to play “hunt the logical fallacy” with one of Daivd D’s posts…

    David D said (responding to other commenters, particularly in relation to what Palin has or has not said):

    @Jose–
    “I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

    Which is another evasion. Palin’s statement is an exercise in question-begging. What does she mean by “litmus test”? When she says “religion”, does she include ID, which was a rather sad attempt to pass off creationism as science? When she referes to personal opinions, does she exclude the opinions of organisations, or the collective opinion of her constituents, or the expert opinions of the science community? Does she acknowledge that, in science, not all opinions have equal worth?

    She has never actually denied that creationism should be taught in science classes, and that in itself is hugely telling.

    @BC–
    Whether she made the statement before or after the issue became publicized is not relevant; it is her only public statement, and unless you are privy to her personal conversations with the librarian (or are a mindreader), there is no evidence that she personally wanted to ban specific books that she didn’t like.

    But of course that statement would have been informed by her take on the publicity and furore, so how reliable a gauge is it to her own personal opinions? Besdies, you are assuming that the accounts of other people are of no consequence, and that Palin’s word should be taken as the last one.

    “She may have simply spoken to a better lawyer.” Yeah, that’s right–there are only “better lawyers” in Alaska.

    Poisoning the well. The availability of poor lawyers is irrelevant. Black Cat’s statement is valid – and equally valid is the speculation that she listened to (as opposed to ignored) her lawyer. Whichever way you cut it, her initial public statements were that she supports the teaching of creationism. Subsequently, all she has done is evade the question. If she has changed her mind, how difficult would it be for her to say simply that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional and that she would oppose it?

    And I’m sorry that you misunderstood me. I never stated that governors appoint SC justices.
    I was referring to the fact that as chief executive in Alaska, she was certainly “in a position to change the law and thus be free to do what [she] really want[s],” much as you claim she would be IF she assumes the presidency.

    This is just nonsense. The “chief executive” of a state is not in a position to influence the judicial interpretation of the constitution. Whereas the person who appoints supreme court justices (i.e. the president) is. If McCain were to be elected, Palin would be one heart attack, or one bullet, away from being president.

    Whether your point of view is valid or not, the way in which you argue it is full of holes, omissions and irrelevancies.

  149. Nigel Depledge

    David D said:

    @BC–

    Once again, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood what I am saying. I never said that as governor she could change FEDERAL laws, I was referring to her power and influence as the chief exec of Alaska to “change” ALASKAN laws to favor teaching creationism.

    He understood you perfectly. You have not understood the counter-argument. It is unconstitutional for a chief exec to encourage the teaching of creationism in public schools. However, if she were president, she could appoint justices of her choosing to the supreme court, and these may re-interpret the findings of Judge Jones at the Dover trial, for instance, to conclude that maybe ID is science after all. Or whatever. The point is that if she behaved unconstitutionally as chief exec of Alaska, that would be the end of her political career. Whereas, if she becomes president, she is in a position to influence the legal interpretation of the constitution.

    Your concern about Palin is that if she reaches the Presidency, she will somehow “change the law” to get what she wants. Yet in her capacity as governor of Alaska, she made NO attempts to achieve similar changes at the State level. None. Zero.

    Because she could not. While this does not prove either way whether she did or did not wish to, if she became president, it would be a bit late to find out exactly how pro-creationist she is at that point. At this time, all we can do is examine her stated positions and extrapolate what her personal beliefs are. The only time she has ever been clear about whether or not she believes creationism should be taught in schools, she supported it.

    Please–go back and re-read my posts. They are not hard to understand.

    Neither were the Black Cat’s, but you seem to have failed quite spectacularly to understand his argument.

  150. Nigel Depledge

    Tman said:

    How about a statement where she says “I support teaching creationism in a science classroom.”

    She has said she supports the teaching of “both sides”. If one of the sides isn’t creationism, then what the hell was she talking about?

    You don’t have one.

    See above. Yes we do.

    In fact, you have a quote that says rather unambiguously “Science should be taught in science classrooms”.

    But since a relatively recent tactic of creationists was to try and re-brand it as science (i.e. ID), what does she mean by “science”. In her own mind, she could support the teaching of creationism (in the form of ID), make this statement and still be entirely truthful.

    I’m not sure what else is needed to convince you that Palin DOES NOT promote the teaching of evolution in SCIENCE classrooms.

    Well, assuming you meant “creationism” here and not “evolution”, she could simply state that she does not support the teaching of creationism in schools. Yet she has not.

  151. msmith40

    Nigel Depledge Says:
    “She has said she supports the teaching of “both sides”. If one of the sides isn’t creationism, then what the hell was she talking about?”

    How about….teach science in a science class……and teach creationism in a religion/theology class? Both classes are in the same school…..but different rooms.

    Where has she stated: ‘Both science and creationism should be taught in a science class.’…?

    Some of the arguments in this thread are: ‘Because she DIDN’T say they shouldn’t be taught side-by-side, she means that they should be.’

    msmith40 says:
    “And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.”

    Nigel Depledge Says:
    “No. No, it isn’t OK. This is because it is a lie. There is only one scientific theory that explains the origins of the diversity we see in living things.”

    Agreed. But re-read her statement. She clearly states that it is OK to SHOW that there are other theories. She does NOT say that those other theories are correct and proven. My attitude is: Show them the theories, and as they ask questions and dissect those theories they’ll realize what is and what isn’t. Isn’t it better to show the theories – and why they do/do not work – as a means of teaching children how to think logically?

    (“Attention class…..Here’s the theory that the earth is flat…….now let’s examine it….”)

    But really, I seriously doubt (should she become VP) that this would be high on her agenda.
    I’m much more concerned that we’ll have a socialist President who has no problem befriending the likes of Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh.
    (I see no difference between them and Bill Ayers.)

    I voted for ‘W’ twice, but I’m looking forward to his exit.
    Not too crazy about McCain……….don’t trust Obama at all.

  152. Todd W.

    @msmith40

    A socialist President? Who would that be? I didn’t see any socialists running for the office, but then, third party candidates get zero air time in the media. The two major candidates both have capitalist agendas and policies, so I don’t think you have anything to fear about a socialist presidency.

    And who in the campaign is planning on befriending Mohammed Atta? Please don’t tell me you’re falling for the “Obama is really a Muslim and a terrorist” BS. Note that John McCain himself has quashed that rumor.

    And really, if you were a terrorist group trying to get an agent into the highest office in the US, would you really pick someone who looks and has a name that can be so easily associated with your group? Or would you pick someone that would never be expected to be associated with you? Personally, if I wanted to ensure a victory, I’d pick someone more like Mitt Romney (white, good-looking male with a certain amount of charisma and no obvious ties to any terrorists). Note, I’m not saying that Romney’s a terrorist, but that’s the kind of person that would be an ideal agent to insert.

    Let’s get the facts straight: Obama is a Christian (not that his personal religious beliefs matter, as long as he keeps ‘em to himself). Obama has never participated in any terrorist-related activities. His association with Mr. Ayers appears to be more business than “buddy-buddy” (and no, having a campaign event at Mr. Ayers’ home does not mean that they are friends; having events at contributors’ homes is a way that fundraisers do business, speaking from personal experience in the fund-raising sector). Mr. Ayers’ beliefs do not equal Obama’s beliefs.

    So, while you may not trust Obama, for whatever reason, he is not a terrorist, he has no reason to “befriend” terrorists, and he is not a socialist.

  153. I wonder why “socialist” is tossed around like an epithet? Are you guys (ie. Americans) really that afraid of socialists? Sheesh.

  154. Greg in Austin

    @Fidelus Astronautica,

    You said, “I hope to see McCain become our next President and, in due course, Sara Palin become our President too and in Jesus’ name to have the Biblical Truth and not mere evolutionist theory taught to our children.”

    The Constitution of the United States strictly prohibits the state from forcing a religion on anyone else. That’s called a Theocracy, and the founding fathers we smart enough to know that no matter what your religion is, if you try to force it upon the people, the results are very bad.

    You also said, “Legally we may be secular but the American people are, 80 % at least Christian.”

    Please cite your source for that.

    As to the rest of your preaching, you seem very sure of your faith, and that’s fine for you. But to argue your faith by berating others will not encourage anyone to see your point of view. Its not very Christian of you, now, is it?

    8)

  155. Todd W.

    @Shane

    Apparently. Perhaps it sounds too close to communist, which, as we all know from the ’80s, is the epitome of evil. :P

    Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Communism sounds good in theory, but it absolutely does not work in reality. It totally ignores human behavior. Socialism I don’t know too much about, a state I’m fairly sure most of my fellow Americans share with me. I think the fear is that people who are lazy, good-for-nothings will receive aid from the government, while people who work hard will get shafted.

  156. Nigel Depledge

    msmith40 said:

    How about….teach science in a science class……and teach creationism in a religion/theology class? Both classes are in the same school…..but different rooms.

    Where has she stated: ‘Both science and creationism should be taught in a science class.’…?

    Some of the arguments in this thread are: ‘Because she DIDN’T say they shouldn’t be taught side-by-side, she means that they should be.’

    Are you really that naive?

    How many public schools in the US have a comparative religion / theology class? Pretty close to zero, I guess.

    When she was asked about the teaching of evolution (I don’t have a link to the actual question and can’t be bothered to Google it just now), she talked about “both sides”. What else could she have meant, other than teaching creationism in the science class?

    msmith40 says:
    “And for her or anyone to say: “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.” is fine with me.”

    Nigel Depledge Says:
    “No. No, it isn’t OK. This is because it is a lie. There is only one scientific theory that explains the origins of the diversity we see in living things.”

    Agreed. But re-read her statement. She clearly states that it is OK to SHOW that there are other theories. She does NOT say that those other theories are correct and proven. My attitude is: Show them the theories, and as they ask questions and dissect those theories they’ll realize what is and what isn’t. Isn’t it better to show the theories – and why they do/do not work – as a means of teaching children how to think logically?

    No. There are no other theories. Creationism is not a theory.

    The creationist world view has no merit when compared against reality. It has not been a respectable academic position for most of the last 200 years. It had serious logical flaws that were widely known among the educated even before Darwin published his big idea. This was one of the reasons that Darwin’s ideas were so enthusiastically accepted – because any literal or near-literal interpretation of scripture falls down when examined critically. The academic community, in the mid-19th century, had no satisfying explanation of biological diversity.

    (”Attention class…..Here’s the theory that the earth is flat…….now let’s examine it….”)

    What would be the point of this, or of something along these lines?

    Unless you are going to timetable extra sessions for classes on critical thinking or the history of science, such a lesson would need to replace one in which the kids would be taught some actual science.

    But really, I seriously doubt (should she become VP) that this would be high on her agenda.
    I’m much more concerned that we’ll have a socialist President who has no problem befriending the likes of Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh.
    (I see no difference between them and Bill Ayers.)

    Now, I would personally be surprised if Palin (should she become president) were to try to force a re-interpretation of the constitution. You use the term “socialist” in a way that means nothing to me. I live in the UK, where socialism has happened from time to time in the last 50 years. We still have a national health service, and I can remember nationalised industry.

    I voted for ‘W’ twice, but I’m looking forward to his exit.
    Not too crazy about McCain……….don’t trust Obama at all.

    In the words of the Skyclad song: How do you cast your vote in a parliament of fools?

  157. Todd W.

    @Greg

    Well said. I would add that some of our founding fathers were not Christians, but were, in fact, Deists, as well as a couple who may have been, based on their writings, atheists.

    @Fidelus Astronautica

    I would also add that you should be careful about bearing false witness against others. You said that Obama is a terrorist and a Muslim, both of which are false. If you believe otherwise, please provide validated evidence that he is, in fact, both a Muslim and a terrorist.

  158. Greg in Austin

    @Tman,

    You never did answer our questions.
    * How much time should we spend in a science class talking about creationism?
    * Why stop at the Biblical Creation, why not talk about all other religions’ versions of creation?
    * Why should we teach anything that is not a Scientific Theory in a science class?

    Do we teach the students about the fall of the Roman Empire in Algebra class?
    Do we teach students the Pythagorean theorem in English?

    8)

  159. Todd W, probably the same fear that promotes that “prosperity theology”. Suffer the poor for they get what they deserve? Wasn’t a high profile female VP candidate linked to a prosperity gospel preacher?

    Anyway, I reckon the US Communist party is probably to the far right of most European socialist parties. ;-)

  160. @Todd W said provide validated evidence that he is, in fact, both a Muslim and a terrorist.

    That’s easy. His middle name is Hussein. That is not a christian name it is muslim. Muslim = terrorist. QED.
    So is Magic Johnson. His name is Magic. Magic = Wicca = Satanist = Muslim = Terrorist.
    ;-)

  161. Todd W.

    @shane

    I bow to your superior logical skills.

  162. Jose

    Did you know that McCain has worked with people that used to be in the KKK. He even considers some of them friends! That must mean McCain is a closet KKK member!

    McCain knows how to fly planes, and has an uncanny ability to crash them. Some would call him a “suicide flier”. How do we know that next time John “Mohammed Atta” McCain takes a nosedive, it won’t be Air Force One taking out the Statue of Liberty?

    And his wife stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, which eventually caused it to collapse. He must be a drug kingpin! And you still trust John “Pablo Escobar” McCain more than Obama.

    McCain tried to protect Charles Keating. He’s a financial Terrorist!

    Oh, and McCain picked a running mate with ties to a separatist party. McCain wants a new Civil War!

    Wow, Swift-boating someone is fun!

  163. msmith40

    Todd W. and Nigel Depledge Say:
    “How many public schools in the US have a comparative religion / theology class? Pretty close to zero, I guess.”

    If it’s a public school, then yes, the answer is zero.
    Creationism isn’t a science, therefore, it shouldn’t be taught in public schools.
    Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
    Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….
    Again, WANTS it taught.

    “No. There are no other theories. Creationism is not a theory.”

    Agreed…….but wouldn’t you want students to examine any theory and realize why it fails? Or do you want them to just blindly accept whatever theory is placed in front of them?
    How’s that different from what creationists do?
    “God created everything in 6 days 10,000 years ago! It says so in the Bible!”

    And my reference to the ‘flat earth’ theory was pretty clear….or so I thought.
    (“Here’s a bogus theory, and we’re going to use our reasoning/logic skills to show why!”)

    “A socialist President? Who would that be?”
    Barack Obama.
    ‘Google’ Barack socialism, or Barack socialist.

    “And who in the campaign is planning on befriending Mohammed Atta? Please don’t tell me you’re falling for the “Obama is really a Muslim and a terrorist”

    No.
    He’s friends with Bill Ayers…..a man who bombed a place where innocent civilians worked.
    Exactly like Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh.
    Bill Ayers does not regret his actions.
    I do not think Obama is good for this country.
    He sat in a pew for more than 500 sermons, sermons given by a black racist.
    He squirmed out of that situation by stating ‘…that wasn’t the reverend I knew…’
    Either Barack is an idiot….or he thinks we are.
    “So, while you may not trust Obama, for whatever reason, he is not a terrorist….”
    Nor did I state that Obama was a terrorist.
    “…he has no reason to “befriend” terrorists…”
    He already has.
    See prior comment.

    “…and he is not a socialist.”
    He’s stated that he wants to spread the wealth around.
    That’s socialism.
    The man goes on and on about wanting a fair tax system.
    But he also wants to take taxpayer dollars and give it to those who haven’t paid taxes.
    That’s socialism.
    He wants to take peoples/corporations legally-earned tender and spread it around.
    That’s socialism.
    That’s wrong for this country.
    Go to Youtube, search for: BHO Admits He’s a Socialist.

  164. kuhnigget

    Jose, I’m going to quote that. :)

  165. Darth Robo

    @mmsmith40

    >>>”Agreed. But re-read her statement. She clearly states that it is OK to SHOW that there are other theories. She does NOT say that those other theories are correct and proven. My attitude is: Show them the theories, and as they ask questions and dissect those theories they’ll realize what is and what isn’t. Isn’t it better to show the theories – and why they do/do not work – as a means of teaching children how to think logically?

    (”Attention class…..Here’s the theory that the earth is flat…….now let’s examine it….”)”

    Uh WHAT other “theories”? At least flat earth theory makes definitive predictions and can be tested. Creationism can’t even compare to that. What we’re trying to determine is if Palin can grasp this simple concept. She NEVER gives clear answers. And since there are some schools and school boards actively attempting to find any way they can to insert as much creationist nonsense they can get away with, you still think it’s a good idea to give them excuses to deliberately misinterpret what is meant by “let students at least discuss creationism”?

    @ shane

    >>>”I wonder why “socialist” is tossed around like an epithet? Are you guys (ie. Americans) really that afraid of socialists? Sheesh.”

    Socialist = Communist = UnAmerican = UnChristian = Evil = Satanist. Apparently. If no-one believes me, ask Fidelus Astronautica. It’s like living in the Cold War all over again,isn’t it?

    Oops, I forgot to mention Nazi’s. They should probably fit in there somewhere. I knew I forgot something.
    ;)

  166. msmith40

    Jose Says:
    “Did you know that McCain has worked with people that used to be in the KKK. He even considers some of them friends! That must mean McCain is a closet KKK member!”

    A former KKK member is a senior member of the democratic party! (Robert Byrd)

    “McCain knows how to fly planes, and has an uncanny ability to crash them.”

    It’s called ‘gravity’…..

    “Some would call him a “suicide flier”. How do we know that next time John “Mohammed Atta” McCain takes a nosedive, it won’t be Air Force One taking out the Statue of Liberty?”

    I think the effects of the physical torture he received at the Hanoi Hilton prevent him from controlling an aircraft.

    “And his wife stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team…”

    True.

    “…..which eventually caused it to collapse.”

    Not true.

    “McCain tried to protect Charles Keating.”

    Not true.
    The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf. The report also said that McCain’s “actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him….Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.”

    “Oh, and McCain picked a running mate with ties to a separatist party. McCain wants a new Civil War!”

    Sarah Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party, and has been a registered Republican since May 1982.

    “Wow, Swift-boating someone is fun!”

    I don’t know if it’s fun…….but it’s usually done by stating the truth.

  167. Darth Robo

    @mmsmith40

    >>>”Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
    Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….”

    Show us where she doesn’t. (shrug)

  168. @msmith40

    You said:

    But he also wants to take taxpayer dollars and give it to those who haven’t paid taxes.

    Please point to where he has said that he will give taxpayer dollars to people who have not paid taxes. If you are referring to his tax cut plan, then you are flat out wrong. Take another look at the plan. It does not involve cutting taxes and doling out money to people who don’t pay.

    As to “spreading the wealth”, I took that to mean that the tax cut benefits would be spread out so it’s not just the wealthy who are benefitting the most. That’s not socialism. Good Morning America had a fact check on the tax plans on, I believe it was, Monday. They had the segment on their web site, if you’re interested.

    Furthermore, I haven’t heard any plans from Obama to “control the means of producing and distributing goods” by the government. Feel free, though, to point to specific plans he has for the government to take over industry as a whole. However, the recent bailout package from Pres. Bush that both McCain and Obama voted for involves government taking over some of the financial industry, which, I’ll grant, is a bit socialistic, but that means Bush and McCain are also socialists, or at least have socialist sympathies.

    Perhaps some sort of national health care is what you see as a socialist. If so, please provide citations that you feel show Obama’s plan to completely eliminate privately owned health care companies. As long as there remains private companies, it’s not socialism.

    Click on my name for a story on how Obama is not a socialist.

    At any rate, what does it matter whether Obama is a socialist or not? Why, specifically, is socialism bad?

  169. @msmith40

    You’re missing the point regarding Sarah Palin and teaching creationism, particularly in the post I made on it.

    Obama has stated very clearly and in no uncertain terms that creationism/ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes. McCain has also said, clearly, that creationism/ID should not be taught in science classes. Palin has said that she supports teaching “both” (implying evolution and creationism/ID). She has subsequently said, clearly, that she thinks evolution should be taught in science class. However, she has not been at all clear in stating that creationism/ID should not be taught in science class. She has said that “science” should be taught in science class, but there is no clarification as to whether or not she views creationism/ID as science. Palin has stated that she would not push creationism, but has also said that federal government should not interfere with local and state school board decisions on curriculum.

    The questions of whether or not Palin a) thinks that creationism/ID is science and b) whether or not it should be allowed to be taught (not simply discussed if the topic happens to come up) as science in the science class have yet to be clearly answered by her.

    To sum up:
    Palin supports teaching evolution in science class.
    Palin may or may not believe that creationism/ID is science.
    Palin may or may not think that creationism/ID should not be taught as science in the science class.

    Obama and McCain both seem to be saying that evolution should be taught in science class and that creationism/ID should not be taught in science class.

    If Palin were to be asked the proper question and give a clear answer, this whole big discussion would be over. So far, her answers have been pretty carefully worded, leaving the issue still unclear.

  170. Jose

    @msmith40
    i>I don’t know if it’s fun…….but it’s usually done by stating the truth.

    You don’t get it. I was intentionally taking something that is true or partially true and twisting it into unsubstantiated slander. Which is EXACTLY what’s been done with the Obama drivel you’re spouting.

  171. Jose

    @msmith40
    And for the record -

    Cindy McCain’s drug scandal may not have been the only reason for the collapse of the American Voluntary Medical Team, but it was a major factor.

    John McCain absolutely tried to protect Charles Keating. What exactly do you think “he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf” means?

    I never claimed Palin was a part of the Alaska Independence Party. But her husband was, and she attended Alaska Independence Party functions. When has Obama ever attended functions of an organization with the stated goal of tearing our country apart?

  172. I think msmith40 doesn’t get satire.

    Jose said When has Obama ever attended functions of an organization with the stated goal of tearing our country apart?

    He is a democrat. They have links to the entertainment and the liberal media = satanists = nazis = socialists = rip the country apart.

  173. @msmisth40,

    You said, “Agreed…….but wouldn’t you want students to examine any theory and realize why it fails? Or do you want them to just blindly accept whatever theory is placed in front of them?
    How’s that different from what creationists do?”

    I think you’re confusing a scientific theory with the non-scientific definition. These are two completely different things. Click the link in my name for more details.

    Some other scientific theories that we teach:
    * General theory of relativity – which describes the physics of gravity, which we know for sure works
    * Atomic theory – which describes the smallest particles of matter, which we know for sure works
    * Cell theory – which describes the basic units of living creatures, which we know for sure works. Oh yea, this also includes evolution.

    8)

  174. Nigel Depledge

    msmith40 said:

    Again, show me where Sarah Palin wants it taught as science in a science class……
    Heck, show me where Sarah Palin wants creationism taught at all….

    I have already done this. She has advocated the teaching of “both sides”.

    This really is old news. Get over yourself, open you eyes and re-read some of the earlier posts.

    While it is true that some extrapolation is necessary to actually obtain a firm meaning from the phrase “I think both sides should be taught” (my paraphrase), the only meaning at which one can arrive is that she means that both evolution and creationism should be taught. Now, since no public schools have comparative religion classes or an equivalent, she cannot mean that she would introduce such a thing simply so that the creationist side can be taught in an appropriate context (because this would be such a flagrant violation of the first amendment, and if it were ever actually to happen, you’d end up with a new civil war with about 250 sides as every sub-cult of Christianity fights to get its version of creationism accepted as the version). And, since the question was about evolution, I doubt she meant that creationism should be taught in math or English classes. So where else, apart from biology classes?

    What else could she actually have meant when she said “I think both sides should be taught”?

  175. Nigel Depledge

    I just noticed that my tangential ramble in the middle of that last post does not logically fit with what follows. Please feel free to ignore it.

  176. Just a tad late to the show, but thought I’d add that as an “old earth” creationist, I think that wood sculpture is pretty funny. Ok, going back into the woodwork now. (Oh and I enjoy reading this blog. Keep up the good work!)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »