Another Palin post? Trolls emerge from woodwork in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

It’s also hard to believe that the McCain Campaign did not know what the truth was.

Although considering their incompetence, maybe not.

Caribou Barbie lied? Color me unsurprised. Feh. If McCain & his handlers were that dumb when vetting this grifter, it says more about their capabilities than about Bible Spice’s incessant need to lie. Frankly, I had a very open mind (seriously) towards her when she got the nod, and I sat down to watch her speech at the Rethug convention objectively. Honestly, I watched her for a total of 1 minute, and I KNEW exactly who she was, what she stood for, and what her belief system was. I come from a frothing at the mouth fundie family (now all teabaggers), and I knew that they would build shrines and alters to the Snowbilly (despite Biblical verses saying thou shalt have no other god before me), and they do. They worhip her.

Feh: McCain’s handlers were dumb, so was he. McCain & his crew are either lying, stupid, think the rest of us are dumb, or all three. Doesn’t matter at this point. I blame it all squarely on McCain. What a putz. He lost for many, many, many good, solid, sound reasons. And now the world is stuck with an endless boring tapeloop is this tedious dreadful idiot and her spawn.

“Creationism” solid factual ground?!

It’s a fairy tale, you fucking imbecile!

Jeez, someone leak her sextape already so we can finally put her out of our misery.

If there was a sex tape, I’m sure Rich Lowry would pay a year’s salary for it.

Sarah Palin is dangerous and is hostile to the values on which this country was founded.

When you combine the views on evolution and her views on global warming, despite Alaskas front row seat, it really says a lot about mental capacity.

Sarah Palin claimed that in regards to her moronic views about creationism that she, “was on solid factual ground.” Intellectually, Palin has never been on solid ground. That is truly alien territory for Palin. She might as well claim doubts about gravity or the conservation of matter. She doesn’t have the slightest grasp of what Darwin’s idea of natural selection actually means.

I also find it very curious that this ostensibly pious woman has no compunction about lying if it suits her purposes. She deliberately withheld her creationist views because she knew that it would keep her off the ticket.

Her book makes it abundantly clear that she has no more familiarity with verifiable truth than she does about science. She is a lying, imbecilic grifter who is hopelessly addicted to the limelight. She is just dumb enough to believe that she has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming POTUS.

It occurs to me that teaching evolution and creationism in the same classroom at the time has the same odds of success as wincing and raising one’s eyebrows at the same time. Try it.

I do like how she specifies that she “was given” information. Whether or not she learned anything is immaterial.

thom hartmann had an AWESOME show last night discussing the founding fathers and religion. I’ll try to find a transcript.

Eh – even if they found a sex tape, my money’s on the teabaggers going into full forgiveness mode because it would just prove to them what a “real” person she is.

I mean: bring on a sex tape, by all means, but I seriously doubt it would do her any harm. She’s teflon to her worshipping minions.

And finally, you are forgetting: IOKIYAR!!!!

Sex tapes won’t work. 1. “Youthful indiscretion”. 2. “Imperfect Christian”. 3. “Forgiven by Jesus”.

I think what I don’t like most about those who say teach both is that only one is based in scientific facts. If you want to teach creationism, you’d better be doing it in churches. The only schools that should be teaching this if they like are religious schools. The woman is as dumb as a box of rocks!

I know something about evolution, having done my dissertation as developmental psychological biography of Darwin’s life. I am also a thorough Darwinist.

The worst thing about Palin’s position on this is her caving to the teaching of creationism. She is certainly not a full-blooded creationist, who denies evolutionary processes.

In fact, her position is a common one in the history of debates on the topic, and very similar to that of Darwin’s American champion in the latter part of the 19th century, Asa Gray, a botanist and Prof of Natural History at Harvard.

Gray believed about what Palin did, that God set up a “random” evolutionary process via natural selection, but when it came to “Man”, God fixed the game by making the variations upon which evolution would work planned, if you will. Darwin’s co-thinker, Alfred Wallace, also came to think the same thing.

Darwin argued mightily, but politely with these men. Darwin always took the long view, that if you could get your foot in the door with evolution, you could bring along the doubters sooner or later to a full scientific position. Darwin’s argument against Gray’s theory (and by extension, Palin’s position, and anyone who tries to sneak in what is called the “argument for design”) is delivered at the end of Darwin’s 2-volume The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication.

I include Darwin’s quote, which is a bit long, for the edification of FDLs readers, as the general population is terribly ignorant on these matters. Making Palin into a “flat-earther” or “creationist” is wrong (and I despise Palin), and only feeds her followers sense that she is being bashed.

Let’s take her errors as a chance to learn and educate, at least when it comes to evolution, which otherwise is so full of passionate but ignorant discourse.

From Variations of Plants and Animals, vol 2:

An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder’s sake, can it be maintained with any greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants;—many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man’s brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,” like a stream “along definite and useful lines of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.

Palin is certainly no Asa Gray, and rather than a progressive who needed to be pulled along (Gray), Palin is a reactionary who wishes to go backwards from the days of her scientist father. So there is a difference. I only want those who oppose Palin to know the facts. In fact, she is closest to the “intelligent design” crowd, who try to sneak creationist babble into “respectable” scientific discourse. The differences between her and the McCain people on this are minimal, and any heat over it is misdirected from other issues, and/or reflects their general ignorance of the topic all around.

Palin will never be prez. She lacks the one All-American trait necessary:
she doesn’t play poker..
Dickhead McCain favored Craps so he’s a loser…

Are molehills found in mountains? Do you believe anything the McCain campaign says?

Did the Clinton lady land under sniper fire at Tusla?

The only politician not embarassing himself in the last presidential campaign was Barack.

The “youthful indiscretion” excuse only works for conservatives. Jane Fonda now calls herself a Born-Again Christian but she’ll always be Hanoi Jane to the wing-nuts.

True, he waited until after the inauguration.

I’d love to see that. I used to listen to Thom all the time, but I haven’t had the money to buy access to his podcast, so I generally miss it now.

Many people think that the “Intelligent Design” movement is something distinct from Creationism. They believe that it premises that “God could create evolution to create”, but actually it’s more like the old school Creationists that asserts that evolutionary processes are insufficient to produce the “tree of life”, adaptation, and more importantly, human beings from non-human ancestors.

Palin herself shows the two-faced nature of this. She first asserts that “I don’t believe that Humans come from monkeys or that legs spring from fish). This is standard old-school Creationist claptrap. It’s essentially “spontaneous generation”…humans from dust, women from mens ribs, bats and birds from air, fish and whales from sea water. Preceding organisms, no matter how similar, are not tghe ancestors to species living today…inorganic crap is.

Even most ID’ers have retreated from this – now claiming that “evolution requires the special fingers of a “designer” to make one form ( ugghh, a chimp)…into a human. The evidence of evolution and common descent is too overwhelming for them to deny THAT…so the fall back into the “but the mechanisms are insufficient…we need God”.

But Palin had started off with the standard “Young-Earth” treatment…then, perhaps realizing that her interview for the VeeP position wasn’t going particularly well, she retreats. She claims that God could “create evolution” (similar to the idea that God could create other natural forces, like gravity…which is similar to the standard Catholic position…called “theistic evolution”). This is essentially untestable (and atheists argue an unnecessary additional hypothesis).

BTW I do teach Creationism and evolution in my classes at the University level…creationism as a confused, knowledge-killing myth that uses out-of-context quotes or historically ancient and falsified scientific theories and data.

Yeah, she’s just so much like “one of us”…say her fans.

I wonder if Sarah has had any recent blessings from her african witch doctor.

Haven’t seen a new exorcise video in awhile.

If Sarah lied, it was the python spirits that made her do it.

apparently the link to last night’s show isn’t up yet, but here is a key passag he quoted. He was explaining that many people point to the quote on the Jefferson memorial that a. TJ believes in God (he did) and b. he would be quite OK with a Bible led govt (heck no).

Thom tell us where the quote comes from and puts it into context. My format buttons are not working but here is the passage and the quote in question is the last line here.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/jeff1080.htm

I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Are the McCain folks saying that ‘ID is good, creationism bad?’ Kitzmiller v. Board of Education showed they were the same thing. Delusional people.

Sarah Palin spin the truth – lie – to promote her ruthless self-interest? I wonder whether any of the former aides she blasted in “her” book would agree with that characterization of St. Sarah of the Victimhood.

What a ssssnide remark.

Oh please!

McCain picked Palin (at least in part) BECAUSE of her nutty religous beliefs, including creationism. They were supposed to appeal to the evangelical base that has never thought too highly of the Ewhiskyopalian McCain.

Steve Schmidt grilled Palin about her views on evolution, apparently to ensure she wasn’t a flat-earther creationist insane.

Fixed it…

He failed!

I suspect Barbara Forrest would appreciate you dismantling the trojan horse of ID. It is the political arm of a religious movement. The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers it has produced would fit on the head of a pin, along with whatever number of angels the Benedictines, the Dominicans and the Franciscans finally agreed on.

I also find it very curious that this ostensibly pious woman has no compunction about lying if it suits her purposes.

I don’t. That’s what these fundamentalists do, viz. C Street, Ralph Reed, Palin and the Assemblies of God, any and every televangelist – the tongue is forked and the mouth two-sided when it comes to verbal intercourse with non-believers, or those deemed insufficiently pious.

In order to maintain the subjective cognitive dissonance, those who do not ‘share the delusions’ must be misdirected.
After all, they are of the world and therefore the devil and thus,in the words of Scientologists, ‘fair game’.

;>)

There was a show on, I think NatGeo, that showed common genetic markers between everyone on Earth originating in Africa, and then it followed the spread/diaspora of humans from that point through various geographic regions around the planet. Just thinking that they could be from Africa has to make most wingers heads explode. I’m sure they’d rather think they came from the other “fertile crescent”, you know the one in Scandinvia whereall their progenitors were 6′, blonde haired, blue eyed slender Neanderthals who looked either like Heidi Klum or Heath Ledger

So who’s on Palin’s sex tape, anyway? Any ideas? Carrie Prejean, maybe?

What I have observed since the inauguration is Obama holding his nose when it comes to Wall Street and Summers and Geithner and otherwise generally acting as a President should under all the circumstances. Certainly a much better performance than would have been provided by the Clintons or McCain. But then maybe you would prefer another “Democrat”.

I was merely joking about the sextape, although I do agree that it wouldn’t neccesarily make her go away. Now that I think about it, sextapes have actually furthered the “wronged” parties’ careers (except maybe that Screech guy).

The danger with Palin is that should her “ideas” and “beliefs” ever be translated into policy, they would be utterly disastrous for this country. A politician campaigning on the left or the right, once elected, will always tack towards the center. Palin, in any position of power, would tack further out to Sarahland, a mythical place where commonsense and doing the right thing substitutes for governing.

That is why she must be destroyed, not personally, but as a political entity. We progressives can’t do that, it’ll have to be people like Newt, or Mitt, or McCain himself. I’m not holding my breath though, the fight is not just about Palin, it’s about the entire direction of the GOP. The possibility that the teabaggers-and Palin-could control a major political party is real. Also terrifying.

Nice metaphor. How is it that all life meanders among the eddies, currents and backwaters of a stream, but man alone glides swiftly, straight and true, in the middle of the canal?

if god didn’t want me to believe creationists are stupid, why did He create sarah palin?

(and yes, i insist, god is male.)

“That is why she must be destroyed, not personally, but as a political entity…”

There’s that whole “nuclear launch codes” thing, too. Imagine her twisted little fingers having access to the “football.” “Jesus told me to push this button…”

Scary shit.

sexist!!! :P

I was just going to say that if there is a sex tape, it doesn’t matter that the person in the sex tape participated, it only matters who has the temerity to, er, expose the tape. Then one only has to cry “SEXIST!” when discovered.

As inappropriate as the Newsweek cover is (imo), the fact remains that the photo exists, that Sarah at some point agreed that it would be great to pose in mini shorts next to a US flag. Who is dancing the sexist dance here and so willingly I may add?

don’t forget that she came out in public attacking levi johnston’s credibility ‘cos he was “using his body for attention”. she, of the wasilla beauty queen fame.

I take it you believe pragmatism trumps all (baby steps) and we are better off than we would be with a president who is an actual advocate for progressive causes? Granted, such a candidate was never offered.

Is Obama better than McCain? Undoubtedly. So what? That doesn’t mean we should not hold him to a higher standard of performance than the overly cautious right of center position he has occupied to date.

does any realize this woman is criminally dumb

Fair enough. At the risk of being presumptuous, please read TRIED BY WAR which recounts Lincoln’s dealings with his generals and the Army of the Potomac and in particular Lincoln’s dealings with Seward, his Secretary of State and previous convention opponent. Granted Seward had a lot more intellectual firepower that the Clintons, but Lincoln was blamed in the first three years of his Presidency for not being progressive enough and ineffective. I see Obama in more or less the same position as Lincoln was if you can analogize the Wall Street Rubin, Clinton Summers democrats to the pro-slavery components of Lincoln’s party and the democrats at that time.

I wait to judge Obama three years out.

“don’t be afraid of information”

Information is one thing. Blatant false foolishness is something entirely different. I have a difficult time accepting that an intelligent person can learn how all the different parts of biology dovetail into evolution and then espouse creationism. Evolution has support from everything from archeology to zygote development. The fossil record shows the stages between synapsids and mammals, fish and four legged progenitors of amphibians, lizards and snakes, canids and sea lions, artiodactyls and cetaceans. The DNA shows that the closer animals are related based on anatomical criteria, the more alike their genome is. Embryology shows that the genes responsible for controlling development are almost exactly the same in vertebrates and insects. Cell biology shows that in every organism the DNA and its associated molecules (tRNA, mRNA. etc.) all work with the same code whether plant or animal or fungus. Experimental work has evolved new organisms from others. Ecological studies have shown how different populations are similar or different depending on where they are and how long they’ve been separated. Everything in biology supports the idea that all creatures are related and their differences depend on different selection pressures.

It has reached the point that the IDer’s have given up doing more than a pro forma defense of their hypothesis, and get to the issue of “fairness, parental rights, and respecting beliefs” as soon as they possibly can. They realize that the data just don’t fit creationism.

quote of Palin saying,

But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

This alone could get her “lynched” by Righties who do not agree with letting kids think and/or debate anything. They prefer to tell kids what is Right and let the kids repeat it verbatim. Thinking, in their twisted minds, is dangerous and most likely Liberal.

The problem that there really isn’t two sides with “information” on both sides. This is just a way of hauling religious bigotry into the Science classroom.

The two scientific hypotheses would be.

Hypothesis 1) Each and every species originated from some inorganic material fully-blown in all their complexity, and haven’t changed since. This would be true of organisms on the continents or even new species out on more geologically recent islands (whether than iguana or finch). All had to have just “poofed” into existence.

Hypothesis 2) Organisms emerge from a very similar ancestral organism and change just modify a few features in a process not much different than that that produces offspring a tiny bit different than parents, or organisms in one region being different from those in another. Species are simply products of observable forces that we can study and see operating today in the natural world…mutation, natural selection, isolation.

What is the tangible evidence for “poofing”? Has anyone ever seen a “poof” event? Yet they should be happening all the time (especially since all those extinct forms of the past needed a “poof” to replace them. Poofed species would have no logical reason to resemble neighboring “poofed” forms in their DNA (esp. non-coding DNA), anatomical development, etc. There would be no reason that there would be fossil forms with features that resembled aspects of two living species or groups.

The poofters always fall back on – not evidence to support their views- but the absence of complete, perfect evidence to know every event in the world. If there aren’t complete, unbroken sequences of fossil lineages back to common ancestors it doesn’t matter how many very complete sequences one actually has. They will say, there’s a gap. Find a new form that closes that gap and they will say…now you have two more gaps to fill!

If she thinks the theory of evolution claims that “monkeys” swung down from the trees and turned into humans, then at least one of the following is true:

1. Her father was a shitty science teacher.
2. She is a moron.

The worst thing about Ms Palin’s appearing in the media is the awful misogyny it sparks in some quarters on the “left”.

In fact, given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can easily have created a block universe, in which he laid out everything to come just as he desired it to be. If we merely navigate a block, and that from our perspective looks like there is a progression is time, who is the fool? Ms Palin, God or us?

Legion303, would you mind explaining though in what way that would not be a reasonable encapsulation of how we did evolve? Are you offended that your distant ancestor was a “monkey”? You don’t think it was arboreal? You don’t think it swung? What exactly is wrong with it in your view?

bleh, editing killed the formatting. oh well

i’ve got a big nit to pick with anyone who refers to god as ‘he’. why is there a gender assumption?

Yes, that was Darwin’s point. Most amazingly, the biggest apostate on this was Wallace.