Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[Spectre13]

Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...

Okay, so you think all the skeletons we have dug up with varying sizes of primate brains, skeletal structures from homo erectus on, are just a theory????

How do you explain the fact that all animals on the planet have vitually the same DNA except a tiny piece which is the primate part. Why do you think a human fetus is virtually the same as a shark fetus in certain stages of development? Only a very skilled person can tell them apart. This is only a theory? PFFFFFFT!

There are tons of evidence if one takes the philosophical rose-colored glasses off.

 

[Gadawg73]

The US MIlitary believes all the scientific studies of AGW and treat them as fact.
A lot of their current weapons systems, future design of systems, equipment and strategies are based on the fact the earth is warming.
But the US military is also in on the scheme to profit off of AGW claims.
Sure, right.
Amazing how we hear the same folks claiming that the earth is 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs, intelligent design is science, Darwin was a commie pinko fag and 99% of scientists world wide are in a pay to play ponzi scheme to profit off of their false claims that AGW is real.
Yes, life was simpler for those folks when blood letting cured disease, the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

 

[konradv]

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?

Easily demonstratable by the fossil record and now confirmed by DNA. To suggest the theory is a "guess" only demonstrates that the other side has no clear rebuttal, as evidenced by their having to argue that the 3rd or 4th definition is really the first and only. Pathetic!

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Easily demonstratable by the fossil record and now confirmed by DNA. To suggest the theory is a "guess" only demonstrates that the other side has no clear rebuttal, as evidenced by their having to argue that the 3rd or 4th definition is really the first and only. Pathetic!

Anyone that pays attention in Biology 101 taught at 99.9% of the colleges and universities in the world clearly sees that the gullible are the ones that do not believe in natural selection and evolution.
Of course there are the 3 or 4 major colleges and universities out of the 10,000 out there that do not teach natural selection and evolution as fact. Liberty is one.
They are right and the other 10,000 are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Easily demonstratable by the fossil record and now confirmed by DNA. To suggest the theory is a "guess" only demonstrates that the other side has no clear rebuttal, as evidenced by their having to argue that the 3rd or 4th definition is really the first and only. Pathetic!

Rebuttal for what?

It's a theory.

Need the word defined again?

 

[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.

well besides humans becoming less hairy and our average height rising..

neo-marxist? are you mentally retarded?

This discussion is way over your head, paint-boy.

Be sure to jump right in when it focuses on subjects with which you have more
cache...
....like favorite Crayola...
....or what you'll do if you graduate junior high.

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe that a massive amount of energy came from nowhere and exploded into matter. This matter became chemicals. These chemicals somehow combined to form living things like bacteria and other cells developed to form the millions and millions of multi-system organisms that exist today. (simplistically speaking of course) I'm not saying i believe in intelligent design but to say you believe in what I just described but to think intelligent design is stupid, sounds pretty stupid in itself, too. I don't think humans are anywhere capable of comprehending what the deal is right now.

Yeah, but at least scientists try and understand the nature of the universe, and their experiments and theories have explained many things, and given us an understanding of how certain things work.

Whereas ID has given us....um....er......hhhhmmmm.....

 

[Dr Grump]

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..

 

[Gadawg73]

"it's easily demonstrable"

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

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

Easily demonstratable by the fossil record and now confirmed by DNA. To suggest the theory is a "guess" only demonstrates that the other side has no clear rebuttal, as evidenced by their having to argue that the 3rd or 4th definition is really the first and only. Pathetic!

Rebuttal for what?

It's a theory.

Need the word defined again?

You know better so why do you play your silly girly games?
It is a SCIENTIFIC theory.

You need it defined as you do not even know what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to refute it. Therefore, they can be disproven.

Show us where the scientific theory of evolution has been disproven.

Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. There is never any absolute proof in any science. But if one wants to define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is plenty of proof that natural selection and evolution is true.
Study the scientific method and educate yourself.
Go look at the Dover case and see where your team was blasted and almost cited for contempt and indicted for perjury defending their claims that ID was science.
They lied in their depositions.
Why do you have to tell lies to "prove" your case"?
Judge Johnson that blasted the ID crowd calling them liars and frauds is a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge.
The evidence was overwhelming.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

well besides humans becoming less hairy and our average height rising..

neo-marxist? are you mentally retarded?

This discussion is way over your head, paint-boy.

Be sure to jump right in when it focuses on subjects with which you have more
cache...
....like favorite Crayola...
....or what you'll do if you graduate junior high.

Way over his head?
You do not know the definition of scientific theory.

 

[tinydancer]

If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.

Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools




Have to laugh to stop from crying as the anti-science wing of the GOP hands four more years to Obama.

Yeah and how honestly are you going to explain to the general public that Jehovah lives on a planet called Kolab, that women come to Christ only thru their husbands and everyone is going to get their own planet and become a god and or a goddess.

This boat ain't going to float in the general.

I like Mitt. I have said this repeatedly. But oh my, wait till the Dems unleash on him.

And here you are though out there slagging Santorum for his Christian beliefs.

Amelia for true dearheart, do you even understand Mormons at all?

They're going to tie Mitt to 175 great grandmas plus. Damn they are going to be able to take aim at polygamy still being accepted in the Church.

Oh and then they are going to nail it with the baptisms of the dead including and the woman has the proof baptisms of Adolf Hitler, Ann Frank, Tim McVeigh and Ted Bundy.

What is truly sad is the Romney camp slagging the Santorum camp over religious beliefs.

Polygamy alone is going to sink Mitt. I know I know he does not or never will become a polygamist, but that's part of old Joe's deal and Mitt will pay a price when the libs go for this.

Soccer moms are just not going to accept polygamy and they sure as hell aren't going to buy into being second class citizens as a way of life.

 

[Amelia]

....

Amelia for true dearheart, do you even understand Mormons at all?

....

I understand them very well. ( :



I appreciate that Mitt doesn't inject his religion into his politics. I don't appreciate that Santorum does blur the line.

Santorum grouses about people questioning him on faith issues - but does he ever give a speech where he doesn't inject faith himself?

People such as Santorum are why we still have Harry Reid holding up GOP legislation in the Senate.

There is enough religious fervor on the right to nominate candidates like Sharron Angle and Rick Santorum. And there is enough "oh he!! no, that's not happening" on the left and in the middle to stop them from actually taking office.

 

[konradv]

"it's easily demonstrable"

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

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

Easily demonstratable by the fossil record and now confirmed by DNA. To suggest the theory is a "guess" only demonstrates that the other side has no clear rebuttal, as evidenced by their having to argue that the 3rd or 4th definition is really the first and only. Pathetic!

Rebuttal for what?

It's a theory.

Need the word defined again?

Rebutt the theory, then. Giving us dictionary definitions doesn't do it. I can do it, too.

the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

Looks like your theology is "just a theory"!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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??

I recommend you take a few college courses on evolution and find out.

 

[tinydancer]

....

Amelia for true dearheart, do you even understand Mormons at all?

....

I understand them very well. ( :



I appreciate that Mitt doesn't inject his religion into his politics. I don't appreciate that Santorum does blur the line.

Santorum grouses about people questioning him on faith issues - but does he ever give a speech where he doesn't inject faith himself?

People such as Santorum are why we still have Harry Reid holding up GOP legislation in the Senate.

There is enough religious fervor on the right to nominate candidates like Sharron Angle and Rick Santorum. And there is enough "oh he!! no, that's not happening" on the left and in the middle to stop them from actually taking office.

Oh my.

Amelia you know for true I have always said I believe in the man. I am not going to try Mormonism as a religion.

Oh boy though what we do do. On economics this is the best man forever to lead us out of such a horrid time.

I just know what they are going to throw at us.

If Mitt becomes the R candidate I don't know how to fight this.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that we can't. It's just how do we do this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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:


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.

But no legitimate revisions of the theory of Evolution have ever moved us back toward the Garden of Eden 'theory'.

 

[tinydancer]

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?

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.

You can deny God and evolution all you want.

I'm cool with it.

Leather festival in SF vs hummingbirds in my garden.

We have differences. You can preach to me. Go for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw]The Words of God - YouTube[/ame]

 

[idb]

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:


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.

But no legitimate revisions of the theory of Evolution have ever moved us back toward the Garden of Eden 'theory'.

Strange that!