|
On February 23 2012 11:57 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:45 aksfjh wrote: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.
Good point. I just like to think that 50% of those have died off or gotten out of elementary school since the last time I heard that... 
|
Can't stop but shaking my head on all of those candidates (ron paul being an exception but i doubt he has any chance) ... good god, if obamas should lose (which i doubt since he's just such a brilliant speaker) america is fucked beyond believe ... seriously, this is dangerous stuff ... gonna buy myself a house in new zealand or at the north pole, just in case ... the farer away the better
|
On February 23 2012 11:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:57 acker wrote:On February 23 2012 11:45 aksfjh wrote: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. Good point. I just like to think that 50% of those have died off or gotten out of elementary school since the last time I heard that...
Noooooope. They're breedin'.
|
On February 23 2012 11:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
My point isn't that you guys are being mean or hurting my poor little feelings, the point is that what gets picked out usually isn't even something I feel that strongly about or is important to the main point. This is why arguing on the internet blows. Because it never stays about the same thing.
I'm really not worried about Rick Santorum being able to turn the US into a theocracy. If he had his way with no opposition, would he? I don't know. It's very possible. There are certainly some shady quotes floating around. Thank God we live in a country where 1 man can't do that. Otherwise, the country would have changed even more than it already has in the past 3 years.
|
Wait Ron Paul is second in delegates? Woah.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 12:01 JoelB wrote:
Can't stop but shaking my head on all of those candidates (ron paul being an exception but i doubt he has any chance) ... good god, if obamas should lose (which i doubt since he's just such a brilliant speaker) america is fucked beyond believe ... seriously, this is dangerous stuff ... gonna buy myself a house in new zealand or at the north pole, just in case ... the farer away the better
An optimistic side of me likes to think they are just saying this to pander to the part of the population who are mostly nutcases, hopefully they will tone it down to try and catch the vote or the whole nation if they should get the nomination. Cos if there is one thing we can depend on politicians to do, it's to abandon any sort of personal belief/moral system to get more votes.
On February 23 2012 12:01 Haemonculus wrote:
Noooooope. They're breedin'.
Meh they newly bred ones will probably not be as heavily indoctrinated. There is a certain elegance to a problem that eventually solves itself by dying off :D
|
|
|
That is horribly biased in my opinion. Its called the dailypaul website ffs.
|
I like a lot of what Paul says, but some stuff I just absolutely cannot get behind.
Completely de-funding planned parenthood? Because what, 3% of the services they provide are abortion related? Never mind the family planning and cancer screening and preventative care they provide for millions of low income women. Never mind that in some states they are the *only* abortion provider.
Seriously I'd imagine someone as old as Paul would remember what life was like for women before Roe v Wade.
|
After the "bomb Iran" section, Ron Paul is allowed to speak. "We're worried about one nuclear weapon. Think about the Cold War, the Soviet Union had 13,000 of them and we talked to them," says Paul, who wants Congress to be consulted before a declaration of war.
"We talked to the Soviets during the Cuban crisis, we could at least talk to someone who there is no proof has a nuclear weapon," says Paul. The crowd erupts in silence.
After that outbreak of common sense, Rick Santorum tells us that Syria is a puppet of Iran, showing a firm grasp of Middle East politics.
It's enough to make you want to turn to religion.
LOL, Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/cnn-republican-debate-live
|
|
|
|
|
You all have different numbers and are all probably wrong. Tell me something new.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 12:03 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:46 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote: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:
[quote]
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. My point isn't that you guys are being mean or hurting my poor little feelings, the point is that what gets picked out usually isn't even something I feel that strongly about or is important to the main point. This is why arguing on the internet blows. Because it never stays about the same thing. I'm really not worried about Rick Santorum being able to turn the US into a theocracy. If he had his way with no opposition, would he? I don't know. It's very possible. There are certainly some shady quotes floating around. Thank God we live in a country where 1 man can't do that. Otherwise, the country would have changed even more than it already has in the past 3 years.
Well to be fair you started with a reply to someone else, and seemed to have missed his main points too, again thats how discussions work. If we always disagreed with the main points of what everyone said, there would probably be alot more wars and dead people.
You don't feel what his actual beliefs are particularly important, whereas clearly the person you were replying to does. To be honest I agree with him, the fact that he feels biblical fact is immutable, and does not change as social attitudes change is scary at best, because by that logic it is in fact right to stone people in certain situations, irrespective of whether or not social attitudes support that.
Your original contention was that he took some very old quotes, and maybe took them out of context, and that they are unimportant, his point was that if those are his beliefs then it is scary and important to him.
As you can see, you miss his point just as much as we apparently miss yours, because people place different importance on different things. What is casual and largely irrelevant to you may well be significant and important to someone else. We don't have a magical device to tells us what you consider unimportant in your post.
If you are going to reply to anything on the internet be prepared to be sidetracked, because your probably sidetracking someone else to begin with.
|
I can't believe that so many Americans are so ignorant and can function in society, yet alone make so much money.
Back to studying for my genetics test...
|
On February 23 2012 12:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
I can't believe that so many Americans are so ignorant and can function in society, yet alone make so much money.
Back to studying for my genetics test...
To be fair, you don't need to know anything about evolution to buy and sell things at a grocery store.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 23 2012 12:11 Haemonculus wrote:
I like a lot of what Paul says, but some stuff I just absolutely cannot get behind.
Completely de-funding planned parenthood? Because what, 3% of the services they provide are abortion related? Never mind the family planning and cancer screening and preventative care they provide for millions of low income women. Never mind that in some states they are the *only* abortion provider.
Seriously I'd imagine someone as old as Paul would remember what life was like for women before Roe v Wade.
It reminds me of the battle with insurance companies over mammograms. Up until a couple years ago, it was significantly harder to make your insurance cover early mammograms than viagra. :|
|
On February 23 2012 11:48 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 12:36 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:48 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
Nothing that fails to conform to the scientific method belongs in a science class: nothing. Period. End of story.
|
We do not teach English in Science, we do not teach Drama in Science and we do not teach Religion in Science. We teach Science in Science, and that involves following ceirtan procedures and methods. Science is not as much about teaching kids how the World was created but teaching them a method for proving a theory through observable evidence. Atleast that is how I was taught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
