Ok, another question for Palin: Did Dinosaurs and Humans Co-Exist?

There's a small site near Tuba City Arizona, where sandstone has human and dinosaur tracks side by side embedded in the same sandstone layer.

Been there, seen it.

So, what, exactly, is the controversy about?

How is this relevant to her running for president? She's not running for "Pope", or "Minister", she's running for political post. This is ridiculous, and it's showing up all over google.com. Great way to show the world what Christians are concerned about... What about the souls of mankind?

This site pretty much debunks the whole dinosaur/human footprint together thing. No credentialed professional in archaeology, paleontolgy, geology, physics, chemistry, or astronomy regardless of their religion, believes this or any other aspect of young-Earth creationism (the belief that Genesis is literally true and thus that the universe is about 6000 years old). E.g. evangelical Christian Francis Collins understands that the overwhelming evidence is that evolution did indeed occur and that the universe is billions of years old.

Cynthia Howe: How is this relevant to her running for president?

Would you want to vote for someone who thought the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? To the extent that science and educational policy are part of being POTUS or VP, that wouldn't be a good idea, would it? Young-Earth creationism is on the same level as flat-Earthism.

Steve Snead: I don't think we have found the ultimate truth of the universe yet either.

True as far as it goes, but this indicates a misunderstanding of science. Scientific knowledge is an ongoing enterprise, and things once believed true may be overthrown in the future. However, in any given circumstance, we go with the best available data. E.g., the sun might not rise tomorrow; but the chances are so slim, that it would be absurd for me to make plans for that eventuality. Likewise, we really understand very little about gravity, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to take a swan dive off the Empire State Building while flapping my arms furiously! So, theoretically it could occur that better data actually confirms young-Earth creationism, just as the "Bigfoot corpse" of this summer past could have been real. However, in both cases, there is such an incredibly greater amount of evidence in opposition that no reasonable person would have bet for the truth of the phenomenon (i.e. young Earth or Bigfoot).

A person certainly is entitled to his or her religious beliefs, even if they are absurd or even dangerous (think Christian Science and its attitude towards medicine); but when a person is in a position of public trust, or even in a position that affects others in a public way, they have a responsibility to keep their personal beliefs out of it. If anyone disagrees with me on this: suppose Joe Schmoe sincerely believes that 2+2=88. He has a "right" to do so, in a sense; but does anyone think the IRS will be OK with tax returns done using such math, or that he won't get in trouble with his bank? Does anyone think that pleading religious liberty will help him? OK, young-Earth creationism is about as sound as the belief that 2+2=88. I wouldn't vote for someone who believed either proposition.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

LOL! I am not a young earth creationist. I was simply stating that our understanding of reality is in the infant stages. No I don't think cavemen and dinos roamed the earth at the same time. But, it will only take one verified find to overturn the "accepted" theory. I was quoting Rupert Sheldrake who is a very well respected British scientist who has been attacked for even "attempting" to research outside the accepted norm. No I am not an athiest but I'm not a evangelical either. While I understand and respect the scientific method it is just that. A method for understanding things we can measure and re-produce. It is not proof of atheism nor does it support religion or any other dogma be it athiest or religous. I have found that the "new" atheist are just as guilty as their counterparts in the religous community of trying to "silence" dissenting views. As for Palin I am not a repulican nor will I be supporting a repulican ticket. But, I don't really care what her religious views are. When I go to a dentist I don't ask him or her what their religion is anymore than I would ask a mechanic what his religion is. Lets not make the same mistake the religous right has made and have a religous test or even a scientism test for political office.

Steve Snead

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of freedom...Einstien!

I think it does matter if Gov. Palin thinks dinosaurs co-existed with humans 6,000 years ago. It goes a long way to explain the ability of a person to form sound judgement. As it's not an issue that deals with the unknown, it can't be dismissed as faith. It's simply a direct contradiction of what the truth is. It's as if she said she doesn't believe in nuclear theory, or the theory of gravity, yet we see the truths of those repeatedly.

All that article did was reinforce my opinion of her. That was...no way would I want her in the 2nd highest office in the land.

First, it is her ultra-conservative religious beliefs, then her total lack of understanding of foreign affairs, (I can see Russia from my back yard seems to be the extent of it), her lack of ability to answer questions that are asked her in interviews regarding ANYTHING that she'd need to know to be a vice-president, and a heart-beat away from the presidency. How she thinks Dino and Bam-Bam were on the earth at the same time? Scary.

No, we most certainly don't need to her as VP....nor her running mate as President. Neither appeal to me at all.