christianmama4change's Comments (877)

“Give it up, she's just trying to be educated, this woman is clueless - let's face it Sarah Palin is a ditz and most Americans can relate. William H Buckley whom I never admired advocated that all voters should pass an IQ test, this was supposedly to keep blacks from being eligible from voting which I abhorred but I have come around to his thinking, maybe all including our elected officials should pass an IQ test”

“Try imagining that you´re listening to the lovechild of a cuckoo clock and the crazy-eyed doctor from Cannonball Run. She makes a lot more sense that way.”

“she suggests we can intervene in Iran. of course we can't....s­o sad. she is showing her true colors. She figures she doesn't have to "study" or read all those periodicals cuz she is so full of herself, she actually believes she knows about everything­.......gee­zzzzz”

“Most Americans are in the middle of the road on that issue. it is way too personal and complicated for anyone other than the woman and her doctor to make that choice. I find I never have enough information to be as judgemental as I could be.”

“It's called irony. They are saying THIS is what represents the GOP. It's a problem.

But beyond trying to explain the choice in the cover, Sarah Palin posed for the photo. She allowed the flag, the 2 blackberries, the photo-ready makeup. It has nothing to do with running or fitness, except for maybe the clothes she was wearing. She just made another bad decision.”

“They went for the cheap laff. It's true. The Nation is more serious. I recommend. Newsweek, while i enjoy reading some of their staff's pieces have lately dumbed Newsweek down for the short attention span crowd.”

“But it's so much fun to skew the numbers. Makes the 2010 surprise so much better.”

“nope. As long as she crows about what a good mom she is while using her family for political gain, she and her brood are fair game. Sarah knows all about game - she likes to shoot it. Why even try to defend her? And Kay66 didn't diss the kids - he/she correctly called out the ditzy quitter.”

“I'm not attacking her kids. I'm attacking her parenting skills. Get a grip.”

“It is just like those elected officials who say that they are doing things to benefit the country...­but actually are doing things to benefit their pocket-books and their ideology. Sarah Palin is out of office...s­o who cares what she says? Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Schumer, Frank...th­ose (along with Obama) are doing things to this country that DOES NOT benefit America!”

“This describes Carrie Prejean rather nicely, too.”

“I think that sums it up quite perfectly.”

“ROFL....na­hhh...they would have told the Chinese government "Your house, your rules, keep her if you like!"”

“Would you want your kid taught an alternative to the idea that the Holocaust happened? Would you want your children taught an alternative to the idea that slavery was wrong? What about teaching astrology as an alternative theory to astronomy? If not in the three aforementioned cases why is evolutionary biology different? I mean there ARE obviously Holocaust deniers and there ARE obviously people who think that black people are inferior. Why do you not want your children taught THEIR alternatives? (Teach the controversy, right?)

Also, mico- versus macro- evolution is not a useful distinction. The ONLY difference between micro evolution and macro-evolution is the time scale. That's it. Macroevolution is what happens when you take a process that you can observe in, say, 20000 generations of bacteria and let it play out over a couple of *million* generations. That's it.

I'm more than happy to 'nitpick' the issue with you. You name the time and place but do come prepared.

The core pedagogical reason for NOT teaching creationism (or ANY religious explanation for species diversity) is that evolutionary biology is a complex subject and understanding it is difficult enough without interjecting non-evidentiary, non-sensical, religious-based explanations into the mix which do *nothing* to further the understanding of biology and will only confuse the issue.

It's a pedagogical disaster.

cheers
LF”

“Great, no one forced you to believe one over the other.

I see they also didn't force you to think critically, or even force you to understand basic difference between faith and evidence. In short, they didn't force you to learn. Great education.”

“Six millennia? Please, the art of spinning and weaving is older than that.

Let's start with the beginning of single-celled organisms 1.4 billion years ago.”

“Macro and Micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales. Furthermore, nothing in science is ever proved, just shown beyond a reasonable doubt, and subject to further revision over time. When it passes enough tests it is considered a Theory (which in science means that it explains all the known data sufficiently).

As a small sampling of the things evolution explains -- Distribution of species; why creatures on islands are closely related to creatures on the nearest continent; why trilobite, dinosaur and rabbit fossils aren't found in the same strata of rock; and why all animals have essentially the same bone structure.

Any competing theory has to successfully explain all of these things and any other evidence that is used to explain evolution.”

“Science is based on fact. Religion is based on belief. If you can't recognize the difference, I'm not suprised that you went to a public school.”

“Your school obviously didn't do a good job on the science part. Like most creationists, you think there is some distinction between micro- and macroevolution, but there isn't; it's simply a continuum based on the degree of genetic differentiation between the groups being compared. The evidence for what you call macroevolution is overwhelming, ranging from molecular (i.e., DNA) evidence, fossil record, and laboratory data. I recommend you try a public university with a decent biology program.”

“Sarah's an Alaskan secessionist. She disdains the entire "lower 49".”

“why does it hold no credence

did you read the article here is the credence

"comparing Palin to Queen Esther, the biblical queen who used her wiles to intercede for her people. The reference was clear enough: Palin, the former beauty pageant contestant who had chosen Esther as her biblical role model when she first entered politics, would topple America's secular tyrants, leading her people, the true Christians, into the kingdom."

what part of that do you disagree with? what part of that can you prove worng

"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information czar fox news
the view 5/20/09

"when the truth is found out to be a lie"
jefferson airplane

"we believe a lot things that are lies. we call it history"
the wizard of oz”