Alaska Gov Candidate Can’t Say How Old Earth Is

Sean Parnell, the Alaska Republican hoping to fill Sarah Palin’s shoes by winning a full term as governor (he took over in the role when Palin left office) has already learned how to play to the conservative right.  One of his major policy moves was to refuse to accept additional federal dollars for Denali Kid Care, the Alaskan heathcare insurance for poor women and children in the state, because he was afraid it could be used to pay for abortions.

Now he’s tacking even harder for the extreme religious right, refusing to even answer a debate question about how old the Earth is, stating “only God knows.”

Via Alaska Dispatch:

Talking Points Memo pulled out an interesting item from the session, though. A moderator posed a listener’s question to the candidates: “Of the following two numbers, which more accurately represents the age of the Earth in years: Six thousand, or six billion?” Gov. Parnell responded, “Only God knows.” And when a moderator asked him to guess, he said “I really don’t know. I mean, for either one of us to do it is quite speculative.”

The moderator actually didn’t ask Parnell to guess, she said “You really don’t want to answer that?”  She could tell he was obviously trying to hedge from giving an on the record answer.

wikimedia commons


Michael Hester
Michael Hester5 years ago

Well, he sure has the politician lingo down, but he could go even farther with it: "I can neither confirm, nor deny the possibility of the earth being or not being of a certain age."

Annmari Lundin
Annmari Lundin5 years ago

Karily K.: You're on to something there! Would be nice to read a research paper on the level of science education in that state.

Annmari Lundin
Annmari Lundin5 years ago

Kenneth M.: You ARE good!

Karilyn K.
Karilyn K.6 years ago

First Palin and the dinosaurs and now this...I'm starting to wonder about the science education in Alaska schools.

Kenneth M.
Kenneth M.6 years ago

Michael Cunningham. I want to thank you again for your repeated display on here of rank prevarication and deflection in support of partisan-based stupidity and purposeful ignorance. You, like Palin, are the gift that keeps on giving in terms of advertising to the rest of our citizenry, via your own free-speech, your tenacious grip on partisan delusion. Your repeated posts show a determined effort to deflect from the issues at hand and to excuse yourself and your leaders from an indefensible world-view. But, don't get me wrong, your little debate-factoids are rather humorous in their sophomoric approach. If you feel attacked by this or other submissions on here, please do not be needlessly distressed; you have left at least this one reader with a smile on his face.

Michael Cunningham

But he did not express ANY religious view, let alone an EXTREME one.

Yet you see such, and will consider nothing else. And you accuse me of not having the "ability to see anyones point but yours".

If the other person's point has some basis in the facts fine! But when the point is made out of whole cloth, what then?

As for the personal attck; "Obviously you are a whacked out christian or just like to argue." Totally uncalled for. Also I have restricted myself to dealing with what was actually asked of and said by the candidate. You apparently prefer to work of of assumptions and such must be treated as proven fact!

"But you just keep coming back with the same lame nonsense." You mean like Michael G who keeps responding with ... Oh wait it is also always the same stuff!

I also would like to point out the level of personal attack sent my way!

Original Message:

I have tried repeatedly to politely tell you extreem religious views are a valid reason not to vote for someone, but you don't seem to have the ability to see anyones point but yours. Obviously you are a whacked out christian or just like to argue. This is just becomeing tedious. I have repeatedly tried to end this conversation politely but you just keep coming back with the same lame nonsense. So I guess I will try a different tactic.

Michael Cunningham

All this talk about the Bible and Earth being 6,000 years old got me thinking.
What about the Hebrew calendar? It dates the current year as 5,771. Based on that how anyone accept ^,000 as the age of the Earth? This would mean that the entire creation process occurred and was completed sometime between 1,991 - 2,690 before the existence of the Israelites!
This time is so short that in and among all of the worlds histories there would exist, at the very least, some relatively solid information of the time before, i.e. the progenitors.

Michael Cunningham

"So those who believe the Bible very literally believe the earth is not quite six thousand years old."

First I must say I understand the point of the message. But it reminded me that nowhere in the Bible is there a statement as to the age of the Earth.

Michael Cunningham

"It may be "rude" but that does not detract from the fact that it is also very true! "

It is not true! It is not true at all! One could point to the people that attended the "Restoring Sanity" event and make A similar claim. But in doing so there is actual evidence. Many people there upon encountering a sign that read "Is Obama a Keynesian", people became incensed at the sign. Even more so when it was suggested that such a statement had been proven.

Michael Cunningham

"Earth is billions upon billions of years old, and so we must care for the planet."

Yes!? But how does that make the age of the planet a proper political question? You see, even though you refer to the age you desire for the planet has nothing to do with the age but care. Completely different.