Republican nominations - Page 474

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.

On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 09:31 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]

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.

On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]

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.

On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]

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.

On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]

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.

On February 23 2012 10:02 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[quote]


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.

On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]

I don't think you read anything I said