|
On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons.
He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes.
|
On February 23 2012 11:38 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:35 aksfjh wrote:
Whether it's wrong or not, it's what this tiny portion of the electorate actually believes. "Tiny portion"?
They're pandering to about 10-20% (if that) of the electorate whose only remnants of an education left from their childhood consists of broken U.S. history and Bible school parables, which they gladly intertwine at convenience. They'll tune in to O'Reilly and Hannity for the latest news, and form their opinions with their guidance.
Granted, there is a similar portion on the left with just as blank of a mind, and will possibly be pandered to in the same fashion 4 years from now.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:[quote] Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney. Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST. Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT. I'm going to break it down for you: Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION. That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications. Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved. Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved. TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. I don't think you read anything I said Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway. As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit. Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class. He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God. If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly. Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
We are not finding opportunities to rip you apart, this is just how a discussion works, we talk about the parts we disagree with.
Just because we don't respond to every part of your massive post doesn't mean we don't read it all. We obviously can't disagree with EVERYTHING you say. There are clearly parts that we either agree with or feel to be irrelevant to the discussion so we arn't going to be making a point for point rebuttal of your post.
For the record, I don't know what it is like in the US, but my experience with science classes is that it is indeed scientific perhaps not perfectly strictly but at least to the extent that they are making falsible claims that they then attempt to comfirm or refute with empirical evidence. We don't even need to apply the perfectly strict definition to science for intelligent design to fail this criteria, it doesn't even meet the very basic requirements for being a scientific theory. There is no possible avenue of discussion in a scientific context for the theory because it simply isn't a scientific theory in that sense, there isn't even a way to collect empirical evidence in support of it, at best you can collect evidence that refutes other prevalent theories but neither affirm or deny this 'theory'.
I for one, also have no problem with intelligent design being taught as a seperate class, or in religion. Because I for one don't beleive everything needs to be discussed in a scientific context. As useful as a tool the scientific method is, it is not some magical measuring stick for truth. But science class is the one place where it would not be appropriate to teach, not because it may be wrong, or it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for being a scientific theory, but because it is a question framed in a way that makes it virtually impossible to discuss in a scientific fashion.
|
On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills.
The economist bloggers commented on this as well. He has some great points, but is completely unable to communicate them succinctly.
|
On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes.
Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics.
|
On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 07:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 06:27 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 05:51 Whitewing wrote:[quote] Santorum's entire desire (he's said so on occasion) is to institute christian law, which is unconstitutional, so clearly he doesn't give a shit about the constitution. The constitution can be amended, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it will never happen. Some Santorum quotes from his presidential campaign: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law." "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." (referring to discordance between our laws and "god's law") Agitation, I should point out as Santorum intends it to mean, refers to Satan's influence. "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." Santorum supports a federal Constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality. Yes, I'm not exaggerating when I say he wants to change the constitution. He wants to amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, and with it a woman’s right to choose. He wants to amend the constitution to eliminate things like social security and medicare, so they can be replaced by "faith based initiatives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_AmendmentFortunately it failed, but yeah, he wants every student to be taught intelligent design and not be taught evolution, and tried to attach it as a rider to no child left behind. The man wants to amend the constitution to turn America into a christian theocracy. I don't see how you can reject this comparison. He's a complete nutjob, and he wants a theocracy. Obviously he's not talking about executing homosexuals, but a man who goes around talking about Satan in actual speeches probably isn't too far away from turning that corner, especially when the bible he holds so dear talks about murder and executions on a regular basis. Your judgment is very clearly clouded by your resentment towards Christianity in general. A couple of your quotes were just him stating his personal beliefs. Also, the idea that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade really doesn't say much about anything. A lot of people do. Also, stop making up "rights." Seppolevne responded quite succinctly to this for me, so I'll just direct you to read what he wrote above this for my response as well. Of course I was pointing out his beliefs, the entire point was to show what Santorum wants and believes in: a theocracy. I'm guessing the quote about the god of abraham was meant as an addition to the previous quote, not seperate? Also, I don't see anything wrong with this one: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change." I also don't see what Roe v. Wade has anything to do with Iran. I don't see any problem with talking about Satan in "actual speeches." I also don't see any problem with teaching the possibility of intelligent design and offering at least the possibility of an alternative evolution (with nothing sparking or driving it). From what I understand, the amendment wanted to just have the debate between the 2. I could be wrong. point it out if I am. I mean I'm kind of shooting from the hip here so hopefully I don't make too much of an ass of myself, but intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. I don't think I'd agree with Santorum if he outright denies any existence of evolution. You can argue against evolution to a degree, but you can't deny adaptation to at least SOME degree. I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he believes about it. Do you have any specific quotes from him about that? The bottom line is this is all weak, at best. Wow, you found some pretty generic quotes from a long-time politician. You really just don't like the fact that he's so open about his Christianity. There's no way he'd do anything to turn the US into a "theocracy" and to even utter the word Iran in comparison to Rick Santorum is preposterous. Ah, here's the disconnect: you actually don't see any problem with a candidate wanting a theocracy, thus why you saw no issue with what he's said. Hint: science classes are supposed to teach science. Fact: intelligent design is NOT science. Fact: evolution IS science. There's absolutely no way to argue this from any sort of informed background, it's simply the way science works. What's wrong with teaching intelligent design is that it's made up, has no substantiating evidence at all, and it's just a way of shoving your religion down the throats of people who don't follow your religion (those who do are going to learn about intelligent design outside of the school setting anyway). The supreme court ruled this exact same way. If you don't understand the scientific method, that's your failing and you should educate yourself on this matter (it's very important, everyone should at least know what science actually is), but intelligent design isn't science, it isn't a competing theory (nobody competent even takes this remotely seriously). In fact, I'll provide a brief explanation as to why it isn't a competing theory: In science, a theory is the highest status any hypothesis (intelligent design is a hypothesis) can attain. In order to attain the status of being a theory (note: gravity is a theory, special relativity is a theory, the earth being round is a theory), the hypothesis must follow the entirety of the scientific method, and survive and pass through every stage of the method. The Scientific method: Step 1: Ask a question Step 2: Research the subject (gather information) Step 3: Form a hypothesis to answer the question Step 4: Design and create an experiment to test your hypothesis Step 5: Conduct the experiment, and observe. Record all observations and methodology as precisely and accurately as possible. Step 6: Share your results with the scientific community at large for peer review and independent testing. Step 7: If the results seem useful, conduct further experiments to continue testing. If not, revise or abandon the hypothesis. Start again from step 3. What's wrong with intelligent design? The inventor of this hypothesis got to step 3 and stopped. There is no experiment to test it. By design, the hypothesis (religion in general actually) cannot be tested, and is cleverly designed so that negative results do not disprove the hypothesis (technically speaking, proving a negative is impossible, that's why the burden of proof is on the claimant: you have to prove something happened, not prove it didn't happen). There's no peer review of results, because there are no results. It isn't science, and evolution, which is science, has gone through this method enough times that it's not even really questioned anymore by people who are expert in the field. I simply cannot tolerate a candidate who is so anti-science! As for what's wrong with the quote regarding Judeo-Christian values, is that the 'we' he refers to is all the citizens of the United States (that is the context of the quote). The problem is, not everyone in this country has these values! Not everyone follows the god of these religions, so speaking as if we all do is rejecting the beliefs and values of those who don't agree, and suggesting that they don't have the right to hold those values (these values being written into law would deny the right to reject these values). Anytime someone talks about how their religious values are superior, they are saying that their religion is flat out better. The problem is that everyone has the right to their own religion, and that unless you can somehow prove that yours is better (you can't), you have no leg to stand on to argue that it's better and that others should abandon their religions in favor of yours. The other (worse) part is that he is basically saying that the bible should be taken literally from the original time it was written, and regardless of how times change, we should still follow it. Regardless of new information that comes along, new evidence that suggests we were wrong about something, we shouldn't change. That's what he's saying: he's rejecting progress and trying to get us all back to the dark ages. What's wrong with talking about Satan in political speeches should be obvious. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with Iran, you're correct. However, if you actually read what I wrote (you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), what I wrote is that he wants an amendment to the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, not just wants to overturn it. The entire point I was making is that constitutional protections mean nothing when the constitution is changed to eliminate those protections, which is what Santorum wants to do. Mind you, he'd never succeed, but I will not accept a presidential candidate who has this idea to begin with. I should also point out, Santorum agreed with Newt Gingrich on making the judicial branch of the government a subservient branch to the executive branch, rather than a separate branch that is part of the checks and balances system. And these are not generic quotes. They are not taken out of context, they are very specific quotes taken in context that describes exactly what his intended goals are. He wants to impose his Roman Catholic values on everyone in the country (despite the fact that he apparently doesn't even truly follow the Roman Catholic church). I have no issue with a presidential candidate being christian. People are allowed to disagree with me on religion, and I don't hold contempt for people for being religious (although I do think it's wrong). I do have contempt for Santorum, because I do have a problem with a presidential candidate attempting to force his religious views on everyone in the entire country. Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? You don't have to be an atheist, or even non-christian to see what's wrong with his positions. Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting. Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game. Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country. You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously). I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney. Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST. Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT. I'm going to break it down for you: Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION. That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications. Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved. Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved. TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence. I don't think you read anything I said Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway. As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit. Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class. He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God. If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly. Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
|
On February 23 2012 11:46 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. The economist bloggers commented on this as well. He has some great points, but is completely unable to communicate them succinctly.
You know what I think? He knows he has no chance of winning not because of his points but because of the media. Yet he's trying to bring out these issues to the American public, to make sure that the next generation is aware of them, and right now, he is achieving his goal.
|
On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics.
Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.'
|
On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.'
I think every politician uses smear tactics. They have to to win the nominations these days.
|
On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.'
Oh, well I tuned in in about the last 30 minutes, so I can't comment on that.
Edit: I should say, I've noticed he's used those tactics the least in the small amount of the debate that I've watched.
|
On February 23 2012 11:51 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.' I think every politician uses smear tactics. They have to to win the nominations these days.
Sure. Just wanted to point out that Ron Paul isn't above it. He panders and twists words and evades questions just like everyone else.
edit: He does do it less.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.'
It's not a smear tactic if it's true. I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's policies, but he's at least right about this.
|
The majority of America can't understand Ron Paul because his ideas are simply too complex... it's like calculus to a 4th grader. Most people don't have the background knowledge.
Evolution was a theory. It's supported by independent evidence from... pretty much everywhere around it. Following scientific method, you make an observation, ask a question, gather information about said question and conclude if its right or wrong based on the evidence. Intelligent design is the reverse. You have an idea, and you look (or make up) evidence to support it.
|
On February 23 2012 11:51 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.' Oh, well I tuned in in about the last 30 minutes, so I can't comment on that.
What about his recent string of ads smearing Santorum (lol)?
On February 23 2012 11:52 Whitewing wrote:
It's not a smear tactic if it's true. I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's policies, but he's at least right about this.
It's still propaganda and smear tactics. It's an attempt to make the candidate look bad.
|
Romney not even trying to answer the question :/
|
Well there's some question Romney is answering, but who knows. Its not the debate question tho. Same for Santorum.
Debate didn't change anything I think. Gingrich's end seems near, but not much different for Santorum v. Romney.
|
lol what a fucking joke....
Way to not answer the question.
|
On February 23 2012 11:54 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
Romney not even trying to answer the question :/
At least he's honest about it, lol. "You can ask the questions you want, and I'll give the answers I want."
|
On February 23 2012 11:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:38 acker wrote:On February 23 2012 11:35 aksfjh wrote:
Whether it's wrong or not, it's what this tiny portion of the electorate actually believes. "Tiny portion"? They're pandering to about 10-20% (if that) of the electorate whose only remnants of an education left from their childhood consists of broken U.S. history and Bible school parables, which they gladly intertwine at convenience. They'll tune in to O'Reilly and Hannity for the latest news, and form their opinions with their guidance. Granted, there is a similar portion on the left with just as blank of a mind, and will possibly be pandered to in the same fashion 4 years from now.
Let me put it this way:
40% of Americans think that evolution is false.
Uninformed, unintelligent, nutjob voters are distressingly common in this country. And unfortunately, they are voters.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 11:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:51 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:49 GreenManalishi wrote:On February 23 2012 11:47 seiferoth10 wrote:On February 23 2012 11:44 Housemd wrote:On February 23 2012 11:43 seiferoth10 wrote:
I'm becoming a Ron Paul fan after seeing him argue with these three buffoons. He has literally no speaking skills. So inarticulate. However, if he fixed it up, then people would actually understand the amazing points he mostly makes. Yeah I agree. He's weak on getting his point out, but he doesn't use smearing or scare tactics to force the audience's support. I do like what he's saying, but he needs work on delivery and tactics. Oh he absolutely does use smear and scare tactics. The debate started off with Ron Paul calling Santorum a 'fake.' Oh, well I tuned in in about the last 30 minutes, so I can't comment on that. What about his recent string of ads smearing Santorum (lol)? Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:52 Whitewing wrote:
It's not a smear tactic if it's true. I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's policies, but he's at least right about this. It's still propaganda and smear tactics. It's an attempt to make the candidate look bad.
I dunno, if it's true, then you are just pointing out the poor moral character/mental health of said candidate.
It's not a smear tactic to make them look bad, if they are... bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
