Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[NYcarbineer]

"... categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,"

Once you have to make things up out of your imagination, you become the evidence for everything I've posted.

But you probably don't understand that any more than you've been able to comprehend the veracity of my posts....

Although we have particularly low standards for logic on the board, you have consistently failed to achieve them.

You can deny what you've said, but that doesn't change what you've said.

I could demand you prove same, but, jeeez...who has any fun slapping around a three year old...

And once again, as always, we reach the point where you acknowledge you've lost the debate by exposing your tell,

the personal insult in lieu of a rational argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can deny what you've said, but that doesn't change what you've said.

I could demand you prove same, but, jeeez...who has any fun slapping around a three year old...

And once again, as always, we reach the point where you acknowledge you've lost the debate by exposing your tell,

the personal insult in lieu of a rational argument.

It's so amusing when 'jenius'' like you arrive at the point when they pound their chest and declare themselves 'winner.'

Did you say 'insult'?

But, while we are in a thread dealing with biology, it may be incumbent upon me to point out that you are a biological anomaly: your brain has become your new appendix: no real function, and it could blow up and kill you.

 

[idb]

I could demand you prove same, but, jeeez...who has any fun slapping around a three year old...

And once again, as always, we reach the point where you acknowledge you've lost the debate by exposing your tell,

the personal insult in lieu of a rational argument.

It's so amusing when 'jenius'' like you arrive at the point when they pound their chest and declare themselves 'winner.'

Did you say 'insult'?

But, while we are in a thread dealing with biology, it may be incumbent upon me to point out that you are a biological anomaly: your brain has become your new appendix: no real function, and it could blow up and kill you.

Ahahahahaaa!!!!
This is great!!!
Now...do me!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe we could start over by establishing the fact that there are theories, and there are scientific theories, and,

1. All scientific theories are in fact theories, but,

2. Not all theories are scientific theories.

Any objection to that premise?

Is this another indication of your ADD?

I don't care if you accept any theory at all...my point is that the lack of evidence means that you are accepting it on FAITH.

Fine with me.

No because when you accept a theory as the best explanation for something you are only accepting the evidence supporting the theory.

With faith you are believing in something for which there is no evidence, such as Creationism,

for which there is no evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And once again, as always, we reach the point where you acknowledge you've lost the debate by exposing your tell,

the personal insult in lieu of a rational argument.

It's so amusing when 'jenius'' like you arrive at the point when they pound their chest and declare themselves 'winner.'

Did you say 'insult'?

But, while we are in a thread dealing with biology, it may be incumbent upon me to point out that you are a biological anomaly: your brain has become your new appendix: no real function, and it could blow up and kill you.

Ahahahahaaa!!!!
This is great!!!
Now...do me!!!

She's gay, but good luck anyway.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's so amusing when 'jenius'' like you arrive at the point when they pound their chest and declare themselves 'winner.'

Did you say 'insult'?

But, while we are in a thread dealing with biology, it may be incumbent upon me to point out that you are a biological anomaly: your brain has become your new appendix: no real function, and it could blow up and kill you.

Ahahahahaaa!!!!
This is great!!!
Now...do me!!!

She's gay, but good luck anyway.

How DO you come up with these clever insults.....????

Astounding...do you hear???? Astounding.

 

[idb]

Ahahahahaaa!!!!
This is great!!!
Now...do me!!!

She's gay, but good luck anyway.

How DO you come up with these clever insults.....????

Astounding...do you hear???? Astounding.

No no, he's had his turn!
Do me...do me!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, get PC going, and look where the conversation end up

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh my, get PC going, and look where the conversation end up

Rocks...this question is clearly bigger than your obsession with global warming.

You have no intellectual interest in entertaining the question of ideology replacing truth?

Since it was posited by folks on your side of the argument, you must realize that it has occurred ..now it only remains to decide if it is an important development.

For me, it is.
For you?

Speak up: truth, or political strategy? Where do you stand?

 

[Spectre13]

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.

Er, no. There is proof that life has evolved at a micro level, and plenty of evidence (although not bona fide proof) that is has done so at macro level too. No faith involved at all..

Well, we don't know exactly how electricity works either but we can mainipulate it and get results with it. From what we do with electricity we can formulate a theory base on those outcomes.

Okay, let's forget the stuff you can't prove, lets stick with what you can prove. Lets go with the brain and learning. If we did not evolve, we would be the same as we were when we were born. So, as we grow, our body would be getting larger, but we could not gain in intellegence if we did not evolve. Those evolutions cause convalutions which crowd the crainum. It is a fact that we have more cezarian sections than any time in human history. This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped. This, in turn, causes the cranium to enlarge; but because the brain has taken the fast track, women's birth canals can't keep up. This is evolution in action. something we almost never get to see.

 

[Gadawg73]

Intelligent Design is repackaged creationism as the Dover case proved.
ID and creation are faith and beliefs.
Evolution and natural selection have stood up to the scientific method for over 150 years.
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.
The Dover case clearly illustrated that modern advances in genetic variation have been proven by Darwin's research in the 1860s. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation. Very simple.
Humans and all organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies their own environment. Very simple.
One only has to look at the environment to see how this works and it is so easy to see. Often, waste products of one species benefit another species. Manure is fertilizer for plants. The oxygen we breathe is a waste product of plants. Species do not simply change to fit their environment. They modify their environment to suit them as well. Beavers build a dam to create a pond to sustain their offspring.
And when the environment changes species can and do migrate to suitable climates or they seek out areas where they can adapt or which they are adapted to.
So simple and it makes sense. Stood the test of time and hundreds of thousands of testing under the scientific method have NEVER proved it false.

 

[Spectre13]

It's not the desire for comfort that has produced the theory of Evolution;

it's the desire for comfort that has produced the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution.

"...the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution."

1. See, here is the irrationality from my perspective: offering a perspective that you are unequipped to handle.

Too nuanced, I suppose.

2. But, I'll frame it once again. Evolution is as valid as are many a theory.
Those cognizant in this area realize the reason it is no more than a theory, largely due to the lack of evidence.

3. Those, and this is where you come in, who have the tiniest bit of understanding, but are deathly afraid of being thought 'gauche,' leap onto the train and stamp their little feet when others suggest that one should doubt its veracity.

a. Advice from Alexander Pope:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

4. So, I'm fine with you having FAITH in the theory, and wonder why you are not equally fine with the theory proposed by religious folks.
What are you afraid of?
Oops...did I just end that sentence with a preposition??? A sin!!!

Can I paraphrase another poet?
You doth protest too much, methinks.

1. The religious folks believe the earth is 6000 years old. That is factually untrue. That the age of the earth is nowhere near only 6000 years is not a 'theory' it is a fact.

That is ONE reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

2. There is NO evidence for intelligent design. Even if, to the extreme, there were but a handful of pieces of evidence for evolution,

there would thus be IN FACT more evidence for evolution than for intelligent design.

That is ANOTHER reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

3. Lastly, the religious folks consider the existence of God to be a certainty. There is NO evidence of the existence of God. I cannot as a rational thinking human being accept as a certainty the existence of something whose existence cannot be substantiated by any evidence whatsover.

That would be a THIRD reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

I guess Johnny dinoseed went around planting all the bones that are dispersed all over the planet. I guess Carbon dating means nothing. You can't argue with a sick mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Er, no. There is proof that life has evolved at a micro level, and plenty of evidence (although not bona fide proof) that is has done so at macro level too. No faith involved at all..

Well, we don't know exactly how electricity works either but we can mainipulate it and get results with it. From what we do with electricity we can formulate a theory base on those outcomes.

Okay, let's forget the stuff you can't prove, lets stick with what you can prove. Lets go with the brain and learning. If we did not evolve, we would be the same as we were when we were born. So, as we grow, our body would be getting larger, but we could not gain in intellegence if we did not evolve. Those evolutions cause convalutions which crowd the crainum. It is a fact that we have more cezarian sections than any time in human history. This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped. This, in turn, causes the cranium to enlarge; but because the brain has taken the fast track, women's birth canals can't keep up. This is evolution in action. something we almost never get to see.

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)


One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

 

[konradv]

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Most of that is philosophy, not science, and rather poor philosophy at that. You're presupposing a conclusion and then asking us to take it as evidence. You pick and choose your evidence to suit your argument. How can you cite the case against Lamarckianism and then deny the very conclusion the anti-Lamarckians advocated? Arguments should lead to logical conclusions, not be ends in themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Most of that is philosophy, not science, and rather poor philosophy at that. You're presupposing a conclusion and then asking us to take it as evidence. You pick and choose your evidence to suit your argument. How can you cite the case against Lamarckianism and then deny the very conclusion the anti-Lamarckians advocated? Arguments should lead to logical conclusions, not be ends in themselves.

Did you not read the above...or not understand it?

 

[konradv]

There are two major problems with your thesis...
1. "This is all because we evolve and learn which causes a physical change in the brain and causes the skull to become cramped."
There is no truth to the above. Known as LaMarckian theory, "A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body .."http://www.memidex.com/lamarckianism
it was found to be flawed and has been discarded.

2. Second, when compared with any other living thing, human beings represent a degree of magnitude different, to the extent that the human is more 'evidence' of theological origin than of natural selection.

a. Do we understand why, alone among the animals, human beings have acquired language? Or a refined and delicate moral system? Or art, architecture, music, dance, or mathematics? This is a severely abbreviated list.. But the idea that a biological species might possess latent powers makes no sense in Darwinian terms. It suggests the forbidden doctrine that evolutionary advantages were frontloaded, far away and long ago.

b. “ The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of
life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of
the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the
two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39) . So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic).pdf

c. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

One explanation can be found in Job 32:8
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Most of that is philosophy, not science, and rather poor philosophy at that. You're presupposing a conclusion and then asking us to take it as evidence. You pick and choose your evidence to suit your argument. How can you cite the case against Lamarckianism and then deny the very conclusion the anti-Lamarckians advocated? Arguments should lead to logical conclusions, not be ends in themselves.

Did you not read the above...or not understand it?

Sure, I did. I rejected it and said why. Your arguments are specious. You must realize it or you'd have counterpoints. As it is, all you have is an ad hominem. Strange you wouldn't realize that using a logical fallacy wouldn't be effective against someone calling you on logic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of that is philosophy, not science, and rather poor philosophy at that. You're presupposing a conclusion and then asking us to take it as evidence. You pick and choose your evidence to suit your argument. How can you cite the case against Lamarckianism and then deny the very conclusion the anti-Lamarckians advocated? Arguments should lead to logical conclusions, not be ends in themselves.

Did you not read the above...or not understand it?

Sure, I did. I rejected it and said why. Your arguments are specious. You must realize it or you'd have counterpoints. As it is, all you have is an ad hominem. Strange you wouldn't realize that using a logical fallacy wouldn't be effective against someone calling you on logic.

You know, I'm beginning to resent having to spoon feed and explain things to you so often.
Last time you had no idea about enumerated powers....yet, had no problem posting that you were opposed to the idea.

Now, I respond to a poster who mistakenly claims that increases in 'learning' causes a cramping due to the brain growing, and I explain that this is LaMarckian...the idea that acquired traits in an individual can be passed on to progeny.

Clearly, you have no clue in this area, but have no problem decrying same.
Have you any idea who August Weismann was, and how his work disproved LaMarck?

"The idea that germline cells contain information that passes to each generation unaffected by experience and independent of the somatic (body) cells, came to be referred to as the Weismann barrier, and is frequently quoted as putting a final end to the theory of Lamarck and the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
August Weismann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little fella, I have no problem with you asking questions, and I will try to answer same...but for you to pretend to know things that you clearly do not, ....it becomes tiresome and obnoxious.

I expect you to be more honest in the future.

 

[Gadawg73]

"Theological origin" = religous origin.
Nothing scientific about it at all.
No wonder we are dead last in the world in science and math.
The war on science is alive and well.

 

[konradv]

Did you not read the above...or not understand it?

Sure, I did. I rejected it and said why. Your arguments are specious. You must realize it or you'd have counterpoints. As it is, all you have is an ad hominem. Strange you wouldn't realize that using a logical fallacy wouldn't be effective against someone calling you on logic.

You know, I'm beginning to resent having to spoon feed and explain things to you so often.
Last time you had no idea about enumerated powers....yet, had no problem posting that you were opposed to the idea.

Now, I respond to a poster who mistakenly claims that increases in 'learning' causes a cramping due to the brain growing, and I explain that this is LaMarckian...the idea that acquired traits in an individual can be passed on to progeny.

Clearly, you have no clue in this area, but have no problem decrying same.
Have you any idea who August Weismann was, and how his work disproved LaMarck?

"The idea that germline cells contain information that passes to each generation unaffected by experience and independent of the somatic (body) cells, came to be referred to as the Weismann barrier, and is frequently quoted as putting a final end to the theory of Lamarck and the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
August Weismann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little fella, I have no problem with you asking questions, and I will try to answer same...but for you to pretend to know things that you clearly do not, ....it becomes tiresome and obnoxious.

I expect you to be more honest in the future.

What are you blabbering about? Are you accusing me of being a closet Lamarckian? I wasn't even discussing it. That was all you. I was discussing your failure to use logical argument. Like in this case you're employing the fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi .

 

[Gadawg73]

Take God, Adam and Eve and the snake out of the equation and how does one whip up a creation is science argument?