Proof Palin is stupid

[Brendy]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss


Palin believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Please do not elect her VP. Please, i'm beggin you.

[Wangler]

Palin believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Well, if we are talking about US Congress, she might have a point.

:D

[brodski]

Well, if we are talking about US Congress, she might have a point.

:D

Evidence of humans in congress?

erm, perhaps I should rephrase that...

[Wangler]

Evidence of humans in congress?


Good one!

[XBoxWarrior]

Can we address the article? Or even the issue that this ex-beauty queen is actually in contention for the 2cd highest office in my country?

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

Make all the funny yokes you need Wangler, but how as a "Skeptic" do you argue that this Fundamentalist Bimbo should be the next VP?

She is a complete nutter.......No?

ETA: nice link Brendy...

2cd Eta: ok wangler and brodski, argue her point...Footprints inside of footprints. I dare ya.

[Skeptic]

Imagine all the things people who dislike *you* have told other people they heard *you* say "privately". Take a guess about how accurate and objective their reporting of your statements is. Now you know how seriously to take such reports of "private conversations" about what political candidates "really think".

We see this in every election: people suddenly "remembering" the Republican candidate "privately" told them he's a creationist, and other people suddenly "remembering" the Democratic candidate "privately" told them he hates America. I fully expect people to "remember" Obama told them he's really a Muslim, in case they haven't already.

[Brendy]

Can we address the article? Or even the issue that this ex-beauty queen is actually in contention for the 2cd highest office in my country?



Make all the funny yokes you need Wangler, but how as a "Skeptic" do you argue that this Fundamentalist Bimbo should be the next VP?

She is a complete nutter.......No?

ETA: nice link Brendy...

2cd Eta: ok wangler and brodski, argue her point...Footprints inside of footprints. I dare ya.

I want to know more about her beliefs but i think Palin is too scared to reveal them because of the political backlash.

Like for example does she believe carbon dating is just a myth created by the liberal gay agenda crowd. How does she explain neaderthals.

The Earth is millions of years old. It is proven. If she doesn't believe this she is not a critical thinker and should not be allowed to hold public office.

[Brendy]

Imagine all the things people who dislike *you* have told other people they heard *you* say "privately". Take a guess about how accurate and objective their reporting of your statements is. Now you know how seriously to take such reports of "private conversations" about what political candidates "really think".

We see this in every election: people suddenly "remembering" the Republican candidate "privately" told them he's a creationist, and other people suddenly "remembering" the Democratic candidate "privately" told them he hates America. I fully expect people to "remember" Obama told them he's really a Muslim, in case they haven't already.

So you believe it's a lie. Fair enough. But what if it is true? Is'nt this something the American voters should know about their choice for vice president? People who shrug off huge amounts of physical evidence that the
earth is millions of years old are not critical thinkers and are just plain stupid.

[dirtywick]

I've heard this accusation before. I haven't seen anything particularly compelling that's it's true. It is, after all, a quote from some blogger. I know they've never lead us astray before, but I can't help but wonder.

[Upchurch]

There is stupid and then there is woo-ish and they are not, necessarily, the same thing. You can have a very intelligent person who believes things that make very little sense. Newton, for example, believed in some crazy stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies). (You could argue that Newton's woo-iness was product of the time, but you could also say the same of Palin's, if true.)

[Oliver]

There is stupid and then there is woo-ish and they are not, necessarily, the same thing. You can have a very intelligent person who believes things that make very little sense. Newton, for example, believed in some crazy stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies). (You could argue that Newton's woo-iness was product of the time, but you could also say the same of Palin's, if true.)


It just proves that Newton is as unqualified being a VP as Palin being a VP. ;) :p

[Cain]

Imagine all the things people who dislike *you* have told other people they heard *you* say "privately". Take a guess about how accurate and objective their reporting of your statements is. Now you know how seriously to take such reports of "private conversations" about what political candidates "really think".

It's not just a matter of who is doing the reporting, but what they're saying. Is this belief that humans lived along side dinosaurs consistent with Palin's upbringing and outlook? I don't think we should find it the least bit surprising to learn she believes such nonsense. Are there any reporters who have asked her point-blank if she believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed? I doubt she has because her handlers will not let her take questions. Anyway, you're a kool-aid drinker. Suppose she comes out and affirms her belief in this B.S. In all likelihood you will probably say that it's immaterial.

Upchurch:
There is stupid and then there is woo-ish and they are not, necessarily, the same thing. You can have a very intelligent person who believes things that make very little sense. Newton, for example, believed in some crazy stuff. (You could argue that Newton's woo-iness was product of the time, but you could also say the same of Palin's, if true.)

I generally agree, but the analogy is wretched. Newton was at the forefront of science, and because he lived in pre-Darwinian age, he can be forgiven. If we want to say Palin grew up in some crazy, religious environment, fine. Palin has access to this information in a way Newton did not, and if she thought seriously -- inasmuch as she's capable of serious thinking -- about agreeing to allow intelligent design in schools, then she's irresponsibly ignorant.

[SezMe]

If she doesn't believe this she is not a critical thinker and should not be allowed to hold public office.
Slow down, cowboy. If not being a critical thinker disqualifies one for public office, a large number of current incumbents should out on their arse. But having such a skill is not a criterion for any office that I know of so holding Palin to that standard is unfair.

That is not to say I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

[brodski]

2cd Eta: ok wangler and brodski, argue her point...Footprints inside of footprints. I dare ya.

erm, what makes you think that I agree with her alleged fantasies?

[mhaze]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss


Palin believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Please do not elect her VP. Please, i'm beggin you.

This is the 3rd thread with this lame smear attempt based on the LA Times article.

[leftysergeant]

Palin has access to this information in a way Newton did not, and if she thought seriously -- inasmuch as she's capable of serious thinking -- about agreeing to allow intelligent design in schools, then she's irresponsibly ignorant.

This is consistant with her belief that dinosaurs and men were contemporaries. To believe otherwise would invalidate her Creationist beliefs. Busted.

Does this disqualify her as VP? I think it does, because she will use her religious beliefs to frame too many of her decisions, to the hurt of science. When the ecconomy and environment are simultaneously melting down, science, not relgion, will get us out of the mess we made.

[Upchurch]

I should clarify that while I do not think believing that mythology is real and true does make you stupid, I do tend to think it should disqualify you from becoming (or potentially becoming) the most powerful political leader in the world.

[GreyICE]

I thought we did "Proof Palin was Stupid" on Thursday. Do we need a repeat?

In her defense, it's entirely possible that some creationist text got mixed in with the other talking points her handlers have been force feeding her. It's not like she's attempted to intelligently process any of it.

[leftysergeant]

I should clarify that while I do not think believing that mythology is real and true does make you stupid, I do tend to think it should disqualify you from becoming (or potentially becoming) the most powerful political leader in the world.

Being eager to enact laws based upon her interpretation of the mythology is a disqualifier in mundane government.

[Jimbo07]

People who shrug off huge amounts of physical evidence that the
earth is millions of years old are not critical thinkers and are just plain stupid.

*cough* billions *cough*


:D

[Bosozoku]

So you believe it's a lie. Fair enough. But what if it is true? Is'nt this something the American voters should know about their choice for vice president? People who shrug off huge amounts of physical evidence that the
earth is millions of years old are not critical thinkers and are just plain stupid.

She may well have said all these things, but the point is that it is incredibly unfair to brand someone as "stupid" based on a second-hand account of a private conversation.

I am sure that Joe Biden has also said things in private that many would find disagreeable, outlandish, or stupid. I am sure that we all have said things in private that most others would not agree with.

[Skeptic]

So you believe it's a lie. Fair enough. But what if it is true?

(Shrug)

I think Palin is a witch. She told me so in a private conversation. Of course, I'm lying. But what if it is true? Shouldn't I warn the American people just in case?

Please replace "Palin is a creationist! Don't elect her!" with "Palin is a witch! Burn her!" and tell me in what way is the "evidence" in favor of the first proposition is more convincing. We have the usual evidence for both--namely, idle gossip and vague suspicions by people who dislike her--and, as usual, we have the claim that the *lack* of any good evidence to prove the suspicion just "proves" how well she "hides the truth".

Why is it that elections bring out the worst in people's critical thinking skills? Why is it that they are willing to believe, at a drop of a hat, that Palin is a creationist, that Obama is a "secret Muslim", etc., etc. -- all on "evidence" that, if it were offered by UFO advocates or 9/11 "truthers" in favor of their views, they would (quite rightly) laugh at as totally worthless?

[SezMe]

Why is it that elections bring out the worst in people's critical thinking skills? Why is it that they are willing to believe, at a drop of a hat, that Palin is a creationist, that Obama is a "secret Muslim", etc., etc. -- all on "evidence" that, if it were offered by UFO advocates or 9/11 "truthers" in favor of their views, they would (quite rightly) laugh at as totally worthless?
You know the answer, Skeptic. Why feint confusion?

Elections force people to express their basic values. Such basic values are often (ever?) not rooted in critical thinking. People - on both sides of the aisle - hold irrational beliefs because those beliefs reinforce their world view.

What, exactly, don't you get?

[leftysergeant]

I am sure that Joe Biden has also said things in private that many would find disagreeable, outlandish, or stupid. I am sure that we all have said things in private that most others would not agree with.

Given the number of things that we know Palin believes in and will fight for in government, and the number of those beliefs and policeis that strike a rational person as stupid, compared to the same data that we have relating to Joe Biden, I feel quite safe calling her stupid. Just the fact that she went along with Charlie Fannon on the rape kits idea tells a rational person that this woman's elevator doesn't reach all floors.

[Skeptic]

Given the number of things that we know Palin believes in and will fight for in government, and the number of those beliefs and policeis that strike a rational person as stupid,

But the problem is precisely that we *don't* know this, since most of the *other* things "everybody knows Palin believes" are not much (or at all) better supported than the "Palin believes dinosaurs and people coexisted" claim.

[RandFan]

Palin shouldn't have been chosen to run with McCain in my opinion. Given the whole Dan Quayle affair I have to question the choice. That said I don't think believing in young earth creationism makes one stupid. I lived in Loveland Colorado and my church was home to a brilliant computer scientist. He was rather vocal about his opposition to evolution. He was one reason I was a vocal proponent for ID. Humans are capable of compartmentalizing their critical thinking skills and skepticism. Upchurch has already pointed out Newton but there were many others.

I know, as Jeff Wagg points out in this weeks commentary, some issues we must all march lock step with so I guess it's wrong for me to question the conventional wisdom. Especially since I don't like Palin and find her views troubling.

I should declare Palin stupid and evil but something inside of me won't let me. It's a flaw in my character.

[thaiboxerken]

Some will disbelieve that Palin is stupid enough to believe in a literal creationist story where dinosaurs and humans lived peacefully together. However, there is video evidence that she's stupid enough to have an exorcism. Bill Maher showed it at the end of his last show on Friday.

[Bosozoku]

Given the number of things that we know Palin believes in and will fight for in government, and the number of those beliefs and policeis that strike a rational person as stupid, compared to the same data that we have relating to Joe Biden, I feel quite safe calling her stupid. Just the fact that she went along with Charlie Fannon on the rape kits idea tells a rational person that this woman's elevator doesn't reach all floors.

The examples you cited above are all fair game in determining someone's relative desirability as a candidate. However, I feel that the evidence of her stupidity cited in the OP doesn't hold up under real scrutiny.

During this election cycle I have seen a few similar lines of reasoning used against Obama. "Someone said he said / did (insert fabricated inflammatory remark / action), so he's clearly not fit to be president." The madrassah fiasco is a good example. Some people with an axe to grind made an accusation that sounded plausible enough but didn't have any factual backing whatsoever, and yet it stuck because people wanted to believe it about Obama.

Some people clearly want to paint Palin as some country rube, facts be damned, and this particular story may well be an instance of this.

[Bosozoku]

Some will disbelieve that Palin is stupid enough to believe in a literal creationist story where dinosaurs and humans lived peacefully together. However, there is video evidence that she's stupid enough to have an exorcism. Bill Maher showed it at the end of his last show on Friday.

Are you referring to the video where a Kenyan priest claims to be getting rid of a witch for her?

I can't post YouTube videos, but it's available out there - I think your claim that she "had an exorcism" is a little misleading. It looked to me like some nutty witch doctor made an unsolicited offer to her in public, and rather than embarrassing the guy she grinned and allowed him to go on.

Again, Maher seems like someone with an axe to grind and who is willing to stretch these minor incidents into proof that someone is a "nut."

[Alferd_Packer]

For what it's worth, Palin has been taken in by the infamous "Fred Flintstone" hoax based on tracks at Paluxy riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas.

How did she fall for this? It's a common creationist claim.

I wonder if she believes that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax also?

[Tricky]

She's certainly unqualified to be a science teacher. Of course, VP is not as demanding.

[Tricky]

For what it's worth, Palin has been taken in by the infamous "Fred Flintstone" hoax based on tracks at Paluxy riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas.

How did she fall for this? It's a common creationist claim.

I wonder if she believes that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax also?
Really? That's the one that convinced her? For those not in the know, here's a link to Talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html).



According to the standard geologic timetable, humans did not appear on earth until approximately 60 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. Nevertheless, for many years claims were made by some strict creationists, and continue to be encouraged by a few individuals, that fossil human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.
However, initial critical work in the early 1970's,and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings.


Back in about 1985 I was driving around the hill country visiting various caves when I came across an amateurishly constructed sign called "Dinosaur Flats". Curious, I stopped at the small trailer where they sold me a ticket for three dollars and told me I could walk around. Sure enough, the place was lousy with dinosaur footprints of various sizes in the fine-grained limestone. Some of them they had highlighted by spraying the outlines with paint.

Fascinating place. I still have a mold of one of the footprints made into an ashtray. A few years ago, I read that they had closed and fenced the site. Apparently, the owners had been contacted by some creationist group and had closed the site off except to "qualified scientists", meaning creationists. No universities appear to employ "qualified scientists" since all of their requests were refused.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other places in the Paluxy Formation where such tracks are evident. All scientific examination has proved negative for claims of dino/human contemporaneity. These days even creationist sites are leery about citing the Paluxy example.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28248ea50066ece8.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28248ea5006ec447.jpg

[Radrook]

Being religious didn't handicap her governing Alaska-did it? Most USA presidents have been religious men. Did it handicap their presidencies? If so-how? If not-why?

BTW

Hitler used his survival of the fittest belief to justify his invasions, progroms, and wholesale carnage. His last orders were that the German nation should be destroyed because it had proven itself unfit.

Stalin, an atheist, had millions put to death simply because they disagreed with his policies.
Human rights as presently recognized by the United Nations were trampled under foot by his atheist regime.

[Foster Zygote]

Being religious didn't handicap her governing Alaska-did it? Most USA presidents have been religious men. Did it handicap their presidencies? If so-how? If not-why?
I don't think the OP is taking issue with her being religious so much as her belief that dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time. Personally, I don't think this indicates that she is stupid, just ignorant. Very, very ignorant.

BTW

Hitler used his survival of the fittest belief to justify his invasions, progroms, and wholesale carnage. His last orders were that the German nation should be destroyed because it had proven itself unfit.
And this has what to do with the subject of this thread?

Oh, I see. You are implying that evolutionary theory is somehow responsible for the crimes of the Nazis, yes? Then why was Darwin's work banned by the Nazis? You did get one thing right: Hitler used his survival of the fittest belief to justify his crimes. Evolutionary theory only states that those best adapted for survival in their current environment will produce more offspring. Politicians and racists twisted this into an excuse to destroy those with less social power. They created a pseudo-science of "nature: red in tooth and claw" in which only the most brutal, vicious and ruthless survive by destroying all others. They did this to rationalize their exploitation of those whom they repress. Real evolutionary science makes no such claim. In fact, it is virtually always the largest, fiercest predators that are the first to become extinct when environmental stresses become great. More often than not it is the small, "meek" creatures that are actually the "fittest" and thus the ones that survive.

Stalin, an atheist, had millions put to death simply because they disagreed with his policies.
Human rights as presently recognized by the United Nations were trampled under foot by his atheist regime.
Hitler, a Christian, did the same. What is your point?

[Radrook]

Gullibility isn't restricted to religionists. Atheist Stalin kept refusing to believe warnings that Germany was about to attack and preferred to believe German explanations for military mobilizations. Isn't that gullibility?

Millions of evolutionists have fallen for evolutionist hoaxes such as Piltown Man, Embryonic Recapitulation, and apelike creatures initially mistaken for human ancestors.

Even presidents in office very likely have fallen victim to that kind of thing. Never heard anyone bring it up afterwards. So how relevant was it?

Obama is affiliated with religion. Is he disqualified? Maybe he believes in the provision of multiple-virgins as-a-reward-for-the-faithful-male Muslim idea. Anyone chance to ask him yet? Suppose he starts attending a mosque regularly after he is voted to office? Or takes a pilgrimage to Mecca? Or admits to being a Muslim. Or maybe Joins Palin's religious group. Or begins chanting Hari Krishna after shaving his head and putting on an orange robe along with all his family members who follow him joyously slapping their tambourines as he struts about like a rooster before giving a presidential address. : )

Will you demand he step down then? Hmmmmm?

[Foster Zygote]

Millions of evolutionists have fallen for evolutionist hoaxes such as Piltown Man, Embryonic Recapitulation, and apelike creatures initially mistaken for human ancestors.

And all of these hoaxes and errors were corrected by evolutionists.

I agree that Palin's merely being religious is hardly an issue. However, her specific religious beliefs are relevant when considering her for office.

[GreyICE]

Gullibility isn't restricted to religionists. Atheist Stalin kept refusing to believe warnings that Germany was about to attack and preferred to believe German explanations for military mobilizations. Isn't that gullibility? if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap.

[Radrook]

if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap.

If you believe that atheist Stalin made the right decision prior to the German onslaught, then most likely you are quite capable of selling a bridge in Brooklyn cheap.

BTW

I find the assumption that Obama is mainly black because he has one black parent a sign of gullibility. Both races have equal claim to him despite the Afro American community's convenient beliefs.
So maybe you should try selling them your bridge in Brooklyn cheap.

[GreyICE]

If you believe that atheist Stalin made the right decision prior to the German onslaught, then most likely you are quite capable of selling a bridge in Brooklyn cheap. Well your grasp of history is almost as good as your grasp of biology.


I find the assumption that Obama is mainly black because he has one black parent a sign of gullibility. Both races have equal claim to him despite the Afro American community's convenient beliefs.
So maybe you should try selling them your bridge in Brooklyn cheap.
And your grasp of racial issues in America.

In the immortal words of Plumjam: "It's a Radrook."

[Radrook]

Well your grasp of history is almost as good as .....

That Stalin made the initial mistake of giving Hitler too much credence is common knowledge.

your grasp of biology....

Obama had two parents. One white and the other black. Treating him as if he were of single parentage as you are feverishly attempting to do is racial bigotry.


And your grasp of racial issues in America.

Oh really? Are you denying that Obama has been hogged by the black community as theirs?


In the immortal words of Plumjam: "It's a Radrook."

Well, since you admire Plujam so much I guess you will be happy to join her in my list of
drivlers. The more the merrier I suppose.

[EGarrett]

Being religious didn't handicap her governing Alaska-did it? Most USA presidents have been religious men. Did it handicap their presidencies? If so-how? If not-why?

BTW

Hitler used his survival of the fittest belief to justify his invasions, progroms, and wholesale carnage. His last orders were that the German nation should be destroyed because it had proven itself unfit.

Stalin, an atheist, had millions put to death simply because they disagreed with his policies.
Human rights as presently recognized by the United Nations were trampled under foot by his atheist regime.Evolution is a DESCRIPTIVE theory. Religions are PRESCRIPTIVE.

Descriptive theories only tell you about something that occurs, they don't say whether it is a GOOD THING OR NOT. Prescriptive theories tell you what you should and shouldn't be doing.

[Radrook]

Evolution is a DESCRIPTIVE theory. Religions are PRESCRIPTIVE.

Descriptive theories only tell you about something that occurs, they don't say whether it is a GOOD THING OR NOT. Prescriptive theories tell you what you should and shouldn't be doing.


I think you might have misunderstood the intention of my post.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Millions of evolutionists have fallen for evolutionist hoaxes such as Piltown Man,

Actually it's unknown who perpetrated the Piltdown hoax and it wasn't taken very seriously by anthopologists outside of England. "Taung child" was found in 1924 and for all intents and purposes ended the bipedal first or big brain first argument.

Embryonic Recapitulation,

Darwin didn't take recapitulation seriously and there's a lot to be learned by studying Otogeny (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny).

and apelike creatures initially mistaken for human ancestors.

Care to name any, because I suspect you're getting your misinformation from a chick tract.

[Tricky]

Obama had two parents. One white and the other black. Treating him as if he were of single parentage as you are feverishly attempting to do is racial bigotry.
While not genetically accurate, demographically most poll-takers would count Obama as "black". For Native Americans, the rules are even less strict.

Obviously, few Americans are of pure-blood anything. In a few centuries, the concept of race may be obsolete. Right now, it is important, though not as important in times past.

Oh really? Are you denying that Obama has been hogged by the black community as theirs?
Depends on who you ask. As I recall, there were some members of the black community who questioned Obama's "blackness" when he first began his run. They argued that he hadn't lived "the black experience" because he had not grown up in the ghettos and wasn't decended from slaves. Most of those people have now gone to the Obama camp because of the alternative, but that doesn't mean he was always accepted warmly. Indeed, Clinton had a sizable percentage of the black vote.

[Radrook]

BTW

People's behavior is affected by their belief in survival of ther fittest though its intention is descriptive. Why? Because conduct is affected by our worldview. Change our worldview and you change behavior. Why? Because principles which guide behavior are based on our worldview. World view comes about via socialization. Part of Hitler's socialization involved the concept of survival of the fittest upon which he based his modus operandi.

[BeAChooser]

Palin believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Obama appears to believe that socialism (or even communism) works. So I guess they're equal in their silly beliefs. :D

[Ausmerican]

Obama appears to believe that socialism (or even communism) works. So I guess they're equal in their silly beliefs. :D

Those views are in no way equal. One would be doubting the validity or lack thereof of a particular political philosophy the other doubting everything science accepts about the given age of life, the universe and everything. That you would even try to equate the two is evidence of just how partisan you are.

Additionally, Palins view is ridiculous and lacking any evidence. Your view of Obama and his political view is the same. In that way they may be equated.