Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[Old Rocks]

Fossils. Genetics. Physiology of living organisms. No need for faith, the evidence states that evolution occured, is occuring and will continue to occur for as long as there is life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

I never argued that life has either evolved, or not.

I've said that you have no proof, and therefore, are as guilty of basing your 'weltanschaung' on FAITH as any of the religious folks you decry.

You are simply a victim of neo-Marxist mind numbing.
Try to question more than accept.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

Eventually you're going to get the response that God in his omnipotence simply made it look like plants and animals evolved, and simply made it look like the Earth is more than 6000 years old,

all done, apparently, to fuck with the minds of the doubters and weak of faith.

I see the problem now.

You have been unable to understand my argument.

I haven't argued for God, or against evolution....merely against the dogma, the insistence on the lock-step agreement on a theory that has- to be kind- limited evidence.


Overall, I argue that getting folks to be afraid to question same...as you are....is what the anti-morality, anti-Western civilization folks wish.

Let me try it this way: you have become the Jonathan Harker to the Left's Dracula.

And I have garlic, and I'm waving that cross! Beware!

 

[PoliticalChic]

When were they on the board?!?!

I can see why a dolt would require that any evidence other than that which they supply should be banned....

....and that would be your thinking?

Just pointing out that you rarely answer questions in a straight forward manner. The question was about board members and you started talking about Watson and Crick! You'd be right about me being a dolt, if I let that slide.

Who's calling for the banning of anything? Not me. As long as there's good evidence, put it forward. If it's just faith, it doesn't belong in a scientific discussion. Evolution has evidence out the wazoo, I.D. ZERO.

Right you are, Konny!

Unlike you, I rarely follow orders.

Now, get goin'...march: Left-Right-Left-Right...

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is floundering. Her knowledge of science is rather minimal. Her understanding even less.

This is the best you can do?

Rocks...you're the guy championing 'global warming' and you write that I have limited knowledge???

A file of your insane posts would be so thick one could stand on it to change a lightbulb.

OK...based on my respect for age, let me help you out:

Science is the collection of correct knowledge.
It is not correct simply because you claim it is, or attempt to besmirch an opponent...i.e. "Her knowledge of science is rather minimal. Her understanding even less."
It is correct because there is empirical evidence in support.

Get it now?

Learn to be more critical prior to accepting a theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, pretty much always have had it.

So my posts concerning the evidence of AGW are insane? Then every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University is insane? For they all have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The evidence for Evolution, like that for AGW has shown both are beyond a reasonable doubt. You desire to play politics with science. Have at it, PC. But don't expect a pass from people that understand far more than you do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

Eventually you're going to get the response that God in his omnipotence simply made it look like plants and animals evolved, and simply made it look like the Earth is more than 6000 years old,

all done, apparently, to fuck with the minds of the doubters and weak of faith.

I see the problem now.

You have been unable to understand my argument.

I haven't argued for God, or against evolution....merely against the dogma, the insistence on the lock-step agreement on a theory that has- to be kind- limited evidence.


Overall, I argue that getting folks to be afraid to question same...as you are....is what the anti-morality, anti-Western civilization folks wish.

Let me try it this way: you have become the Jonathan Harker to the Left's Dracula.

And I have garlic, and I'm waving that cross! Beware!

What is anti-Western and anti-moral about accepting the inarguable reality that the overwhelmingly preponderance of the evidence available supports the theory of Evolution?

The evidence for Evolution is overwhelmingly abundant. To deny that is simply ignorance, obstinance, or a combination of the 2.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before you get all wound up, realize that many scientists today agree that the events and parameters necessary to get to where we are today require a confluence that is mathematically improbable...

If you have the time, the article in Harper's Mag should be required reading. In part:

" …the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)


I challenge anyone to read this piece and still be rock sure about the beliefs in this thread.


If I may go beyond topic...the insistence on a scientific explanation for the universe, and for evolution, is fundamental to a neo-Marxist attack on religion and morality.

I'd be happy to expand on that....

Nothing there offers a counter-argument to what I said.

I reject the argument in your quote. The origin and evolution of life on this planet occurred in 5 billion year timespan -

when you had the random combinations of elements and compounds, in addition to a selection process that determines survivability, occurring over what is to us an incomprehensibly long period of time, BILLIONS of years,

it is not hard to imagine or accept the feasibility of evolution producing all that exists in the various species today.

People who can't grasp the enormity of the time frame within which evolution had to work can't grasp the concept of something complex evolving.

Your testimony "...it is not hard to imagine or accept..." is exactly my point.
Accepting sans evidence is known as FAITH.

Amen, brother.

Natural selection is not based on faith, it's easily demonstrable and has been for ages now in the actual study of evolution.

 

[idb]

PC is floundering. Her knowledge of science is rather minimal. Her understanding even less.

This is the best you can do?

Rocks...you're the guy championing 'global warming' and you write that I have limited knowledge???

A file of your insane posts would be so thick one could stand on it to change a lightbulb.

OK...based on my respect for age, let me help you out:

Science is the collection of correct knowledge.

It is not correct simply because you claim it is, or attempt to besmirch an opponent...i.e. "Her knowledge of science is rather minimal. Her understanding even less."
It is correct because there is empirical evidence in support.

Get it now?

Learn to be more critical prior to accepting a theory.

Science is the collection of correct knowledge.

No it isn't, it's the collection of evidence, testing the evidence and reaching a conclusion.
The conclusions are open to contradiction and revision.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Rocks...you're the guy championing 'global warming' and you write that I have limited knowledge???

And Einstein insisted the quantum mechanics was false. That fact doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about biology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, pretty much always have had it.

So my posts concerning the evidence of AGW are insane? Then every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University is insane? For they all have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The evidence for Evolution, like that for AGW has shown both are beyond a reasonable doubt. You desire to play politics with science. Have at it, PC. But don't expect a pass from people that understand far more than you do.

Still lookin' for those people, Rocks....

....you know any?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Eventually you're going to get the response that God in his omnipotence simply made it look like plants and animals evolved, and simply made it look like the Earth is more than 6000 years old,

all done, apparently, to fuck with the minds of the doubters and weak of faith.

I see the problem now.

You have been unable to understand my argument.

I haven't argued for God, or against evolution....merely against the dogma, the insistence on the lock-step agreement on a theory that has- to be kind- limited evidence.


Overall, I argue that getting folks to be afraid to question same...as you are....is what the anti-morality, anti-Western civilization folks wish.

Let me try it this way: you have become the Jonathan Harker to the Left's Dracula.

And I have garlic, and I'm waving that cross! Beware!

What is anti-Western and anti-moral about accepting the inarguable reality that the overwhelmingly preponderance of the evidence available supports the theory of Evolution?

The evidence for Evolution is overwhelmingly abundant. To deny that is simply ignorance, obstinance, or a combination of the 2.

"...the overwhelmingly preponderance of the evidence...."
And that wold be??

"overwhelmingly abundant."
Hardly.

" To deny that is simply ignorance..."
Is that why it's called a theory?

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/
Noun:
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"



sup·po·si·tion/ˌsəpəˈziSHən/
Noun:
An uncertain belief.
Synonyms:
assumption - presumption - surmise - guess - conjecture


Again? "An uncertain belief."
Bet that hurt.


I find that the folks who pound the table about how brilliant they are for accepting the 'theory' are the ones who are deathly afraid to be recognized as ignorant....

....shoe fit?



See that, carby....you learned some vocabulary and how to be smarter in the same post.
Yippee!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing there offers a counter-argument to what I said.

I reject the argument in your quote. The origin and evolution of life on this planet occurred in 5 billion year timespan -

when you had the random combinations of elements and compounds, in addition to a selection process that determines survivability, occurring over what is to us an incomprehensibly long period of time, BILLIONS of years,

it is not hard to imagine or accept the feasibility of evolution producing all that exists in the various species today.

People who can't grasp the enormity of the time frame within which evolution had to work can't grasp the concept of something complex evolving.

Your testimony "...it is not hard to imagine or accept..." is exactly my point.
Accepting sans evidence is known as FAITH.

Amen, brother.

Natural selection is not based on faith, it's easily demonstrable and has been for ages now in the actual study of evolution.

"it's easily demonstrable"

Don't you mean easily disseminated to the gullible....?

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rocks...you're the guy championing 'global warming' and you write that I have limited knowledge???

And Einstein insisted the quantum mechanics was false. That fact doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about biology.

General relativity stands apart, unreconciled with the Standard Model...which fails to incorporate gravity.

So....what the heck is your point?

"For physicists who routinely use both quantum laws and Einstein's ideas, this contradiction can be almost embarrassing to dwell on. Yet Einstein was one of the founders of quantum physics and he spent many years preaching the quantum's revolutionary importance."
Boles, "Einstein Defiant."


And then you wrote..."That fact doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about biology."
Wha..??????


OH...I see. You're attempting to appear relevant in this discussion.
Here's a cookie....now go away.

 

[BlindBoo]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

I never argued that life has either evolved, or not.

I've said that you have no proof, and therefore, are as guilty of basing your 'weltanschaung' on FAITH as any of the religious folks you decry.

You are simply a victim of neo-Marxist mind numbing.
Try to question more than accept.

Try again dear,

I'm not a victim of anything. I learned about the fossel records and extinction bounderies from my dad back in the 60's. He is a lifelong Republican and Catholic. He is not a neo-Marxist. I however am a Marxist.....Groucho was my favorite

 

[PoliticalChic]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

I never argued that life has either evolved, or not.

I've said that you have no proof, and therefore, are as guilty of basing your 'weltanschaung' on FAITH as any of the religious folks you decry.

You are simply a victim of neo-Marxist mind numbing.
Try to question more than accept.

Try again dear,

I'm not a victim of anything. I learned about the fossel records and extinction bounderies from my dad back in the 60's. He is a lifelong Republican and Catholic. He is not a neo-Marxist. I however am a Marxist.....Groucho was my favorite

1. Just because you don't realize that you've been snookered doesn't mean you haven't been snookered.

a. Didn't you see Redford in "The Sting"?

b. You've been stung.

2. This is in no way a disparagement of your dad. Sounds like a pretty good guy, to me.

3. “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl.”
― Irving Berlin

 

[BlindBoo]

I never argued that life has either evolved, or not.

I've said that you have no proof, and therefore, are as guilty of basing your 'weltanschaung' on FAITH as any of the religious folks you decry.

You are simply a victim of neo-Marxist mind numbing.
Try to question more than accept.

Try again dear,

I'm not a victim of anything. I learned about the fossel records and extinction bounderies from my dad back in the 60's. He is a lifelong Republican and Catholic. He is not a neo-Marxist. I however am a Marxist.....Groucho was my favorite

1. Just because you don't realize that you've been snookered doesn't mean you haven't been snookered.

a. Didn't you see Redford in "The Sting"?

b. You've been stung.

2. This is in no way a disparagement of your dad. Sounds like a pretty good guy, to me.

3. “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl.”
― Irving Berlin

1. Just because you say I've been duped doesn't mean it's true or that you have any evidence of such duping.

a. Yes, good movie

b. but hardly applicable to a discussion about evolution, extinction events and the fossel record.

2. He was and is still my hero.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c3WhbnlyPM&feature=related]Foo Fighters - My Hero (2006) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try again dear,

I'm not a victim of anything. I learned about the fossel records and extinction bounderies from my dad back in the 60's. He is a lifelong Republican and Catholic. He is not a neo-Marxist. I however am a Marxist.....Groucho was my favorite

1. Just because you don't realize that you've been snookered doesn't mean you haven't been snookered.

a. Didn't you see Redford in "The Sting"?

b. You've been stung.

2. This is in no way a disparagement of your dad. Sounds like a pretty good guy, to me.

3. “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl.”
― Irving Berlin

1. Just because you say I've been duped doesn't mean it's true or that you have any evidence of such duping.

a. Yes, good movie

b. but hardly applicable to a discussion about evolution, extinction events and the fossel record.

2. He was and is still my hero.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c3WhbnlyPM&feature=related]Foo Fighters - My Hero (2006) - YouTube[/ame]

"Just because you say I've been duped doesn't mean it's true..."

Check out post #152....it's dispositive, and a classic!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Try again dear,

I'm not a victim of anything. I learned about the fossel records and extinction bounderies from my dad back in the 60's. He is a lifelong Republican and Catholic. He is not a neo-Marxist. I however am a Marxist.....Groucho was my favorite

1. Just because you don't realize that you've been snookered doesn't mean you haven't been snookered.

a. Didn't you see Redford in "The Sting"?

b. You've been stung.

2. This is in no way a disparagement of your dad. Sounds like a pretty good guy, to me.

3. “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl.”
― Irving Berlin

1. Just because you say I've been duped doesn't mean it's true or that you have any evidence of such duping.

a. Yes, good movie

b. but hardly applicable to a discussion about evolution, extinction events and the fossel record.

2. He was and is still my hero.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c3WhbnlyPM&feature=related]Foo Fighters - My Hero (2006) - YouTube[/ame]

I've got to admit that #2 almost made me cry.
Hope my children say the same.....

 

[BlindBoo]

1. Just because you don't realize that you've been snookered doesn't mean you haven't been snookered.

a. Didn't you see Redford in "The Sting"?

b. You've been stung.

2. This is in no way a disparagement of your dad. Sounds like a pretty good guy, to me.

3. “The world would not be in such a snarl, had Marx been Groucho instead of Karl.”
― Irving Berlin

1. Just because you say I've been duped doesn't mean it's true or that you have any evidence of such duping.

a. Yes, good movie

b. but hardly applicable to a discussion about evolution, extinction events and the fossel record.

2. He was and is still my hero.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c3WhbnlyPM&feature=related]Foo Fighters - My Hero (2006) - YouTube[/ame]

I've got to admit that #2 almost made me cry.
Hope my children say the same.....

Well he did somehow become quite smart in between the time I was 17 and 21.