Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times ^ | 11/13/5 | Bill Vidonic

Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-686 next last
To: DoughtyOne
Your own side admits it.

Citation for this admission?

(I now eagerly wait to see if DoughtyOne provides a cop-out or a mined quote)
101 posted on 11/13/2005 5:18:13 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"Fine, then remove the unproven 'theory' of evolution from science classrooms. I have no problem with it. Thanks.

By the way you emphasized the word 'theory' is sounds like you think that theories are somewhat less than what should be taught. This shows a lack of understanding of how science works. No problem, this is common among creationists. Let me explain it to you.

Nothing in science is based on proof, or proofs, but on statistical analysis of evidence that provides us with a level of confidence that the theory is valid. So, number one, asking for proof is erroneous. Asking for evidence would be correct.

A theory is made up of a number of hypotheses, from one to however many are developed, that have been tested and found to give a high level of confidence. In other words, a theory has already been tested and verified. As you can see this pretty much is counter to your statement about 'unproven theories'.

102 posted on 11/13/2005 5:18:50 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
But it's "just a theory"
103 posted on 11/13/2005 5:20:20 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
Being conservative has nothing to do with evolution or ID. For you to suggest otherwise is not correct.

I would strongly suggest otherwise and I think it's highly remiss for you to suggest that. ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo. Evolution is nothing short of a theory well short on facts and data yet one that has simply been embraced, largely by people on the left, simply b/c their not embracing it indicts much of the basis for their thinking generally and particularly speaking.

I'll leave it for you to consider which ideology, conservatism or liberalism is the one that is short on facts, truth, and bases for their arguments and which is founded on truth, facts, and solid foundations for their arguments!

Cordially!

104 posted on 11/13/2005 5:22:34 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
You failed to understand my point.

No, I really did not. I just don't see that these people are dictating any such religion to you or anyone else. And I don't see them doing it "despite" the scientific evidence, I see them doing it with it. Your argument presumes that they think nothing of science and that science has no place with God. I say thats nonsense.

105 posted on 11/13/2005 5:22:54 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Fruitbat
ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo.

State some of these facts.

Evolution is nothing short of a theory

What else would you expect it to be?
106 posted on 11/13/2005 5:23:25 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

  1. 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design Grounded in Science
  2. 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design, Part 1
  3. 2005-11-13 Pope states the universe is a product of an 'intelligent project'
  4. 2005-11-13 Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
  5. 2005-11-12 [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius criticizes State Board of Education's move [new science standards]
  6. 2005-11-12 ID [Intelligent Design] Opens Astronomer’s Mind to Universe’s Surprises
  7. 2005-11-11 A revolution for evolution - Intelligent design must not replace hard science in classrooms.
  8. 2005-11-11 Dover results disputed: School board candidate says machine was faulty
  9. 2005-11-11 FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?
  10. 2005-11-11 Potential Origins of Europeans Found
  11. 2005-11-11 The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism
  12. 2005-11-10 Culture War Briefing, weekday news guide
  13. 2005-11-10 Fossils of fierce-looking dinosaur found in Argentina (Godzilla)
  14. 2005-11-10 Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
  15. 2005-11-10 Kansas educators clear way for evolution criticism
  16. 2005-11-10 Pat Robertson has a message for Dover, PA: Don't ask God to help.
  17. 2005-11-10 Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster
  18. 2005-11-10 US states divide over creationism [the view from the UK]
  19. 2005-11-10 Why the conspiracy theorizing about theories? (Freeper op-ed)
  20. 2005-11-09 Anti-Evolution School Board Ousted
  21. 2005-11-09 Dover CARES sweeps election (Intelligent Design loses big)
  22. 2005-11-09 Evolution Suffers Kansas Setback
  23. 2005-11-09 Gigantic Apes Coexisted With Early Humans, Study Finds
  24. 2005-11-09 'Intelligent Design' Wins In Kansas
  25. 2005-11-09 Patent issued for anti-gravity device
  26. 2005-11-09 Science to ride gravitational waves
  27. 2005-11-09 Shifting Icebergs May Have Forced Penguin Evolution
  28. 2005-11-09 Shifting Icebergs May Have Forced Penguin Evolution
  29. 2005-11-08 Bloodthirsty 'Vampire' Spider Found
  30. 2005-11-08 Down for the Count (Sleep & Evolution)
  31. 2005-11-08 Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
  32. 2005-11-08 Kansas education board downplays evolution
  33. 2005-11-08 Kansas State Board Approves Teaching Standards Skeptical of Evolution
  34. 2005-11-08 Math problems too big for our brains
  35. 2005-11-08 RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years (Evolution loses)
  36. 2005-11-08 The 'Vatican' Endorses 'Darwin'? ['Vatican' has done no such thing
  37. 2005-11-07 [Kansas] Board Votes on Evolution (Tomorrow, NOV 8 - Teaching I.D. to be approved!)
  38. 2005-11-07 A pope for our times: why Darwin is back on the agenda at the Vatican
  39. 2005-11-07 An Evolutionist's Evolution [Huge exhibit at Museum of Nat. History, NYC]
  40. 2005-11-07 Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
  41. 2005-11-07 Good genes beat good homes as guide to pupils’ school Success
  42. 2005-11-07 Kennewick Man, Meet Your Distant Cousins
  43. 2005-11-07 Prehistoric skull found in dump may be missing common ancestor of apes & humans

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of November:
 

2000-11-29 An.American.Expatriate
2000-11-10 AncientAirs
2000-11-21 AndrewC
1998-11-18 angelo
2000-11-10 beavus
1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants
2003-11-26 blowfish
2004-11-08 CarolinaGuitarman
1997-11-28 cd jones
2001-11-30 claptrap
2001-11-16 CobaltBlue
2005-11-10 culturewars
2002-11-21 DannyTN
2004-11-16 DaveLoneRanger
1997-11-30 Ditto
2001-11-16 dmz
2000-11-11
Ernest_at_the_Beach
2000-11-02 Exit 109
2004-11-05 FeeinTennessee
2000-11-22 FFIGHTER
2000-11-12 ForGod'sSake
2001-11-07 FourtySeven
2000-11-15 freespirited
2000-11-10 Godel
2004-11-06 GreenOgre
2004-11-03 Grey Rabbit
2000-11-04 harbinger of doom
2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck
1999-11-05 Ichneumon
1998-11-13 jennyp
1998-11-25 Junior_G
2002-11-17 Just mythoughts
2004-11-11 kaotic133
2003-11-18
little jeremiah
1998-11-18 malakhi
2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko
2004-11-24 mista science
2003-11-09 MplsSteve
2000-11-06 mrjeff
1999-11-05 muleskinner
2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary
2002-11-12 NCLaw441
1999-11-25 Nebullis
2000-11-13 NYer
2000-11-24 old-ager
2004-11-03 PajamaHadin
2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen
1998-11-01 Pharmboy
2000-11-11 P-Marlowe
2000-11-16
presidio9

1999-11-08 Pyro7480
2002-11-14 Remedy
2000-11-30 Right Wing Professor
2004-11-18 rightwinggoth
1998-11-15 rob777
1998-11-04 RobRoy
2004-11-01 SeasideSparrow
2004-11-05 shadowfighter
1999-11-16 TerP26
2004-11-13 This Just In
2000-11-04 TigerTale
2004-11-11 untrained skeptic
2004-11-21 VictoryGal
2001-11-25 Vote 4 Nixon
2000-11-05 will of the people
2003-11-29 woodb01


In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:


1LongTimeLurker
ALS
angelo
Area Freeper
Aric2000
Askel5
Asphalt
biblewonk
bluepistolero
churchillbuff
claptrap
codebreaker
Con X-Poser
ConservababeJen
DittoJed2
dob

Ed Current
f.Christian
followerofchrist
general_re
goodseedhomeschool
gopwinsin04
gore3000
IllumiNOTi
JediGirl
JesseShurun
JethroHathaway
jlogajan
Justice Avenger
Kevin Curry
kharaku
knowquest

Land of the Irish
Le-Roy
malakhi
Marathon
medved
metacognative
mikeharris65
missyme
Modernman
n4sir
NoKinToMonkeys
Ogmios
peg the prophet
Phaedrus
Phoroneus
pickemuphere

ReasonedThought ret_medic
RickyJ
SeaLion
Selkie
Shubi
SplashDog
The Loan Arranger
Tomax
tpaine
Truth666
twittle
Unalienable
WaveThatFlag
xm177e2


Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!


Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)


Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever


Glossary of Terms

Assumption: Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Belief: Any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
CrevoCreation vs. evolution
CrevoSciCreation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors:  Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Law: A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Observation: Any information collected with the senses
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"


The
official beer
of Darwin Central

107 posted on 11/13/2005 5:24:01 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

As I said in an earlier post, we're dealing with people who have no kinship to, no education in and no understanding of science. They insist, in their arguments here, that science conform to their uninformed beliefs.


108 posted on 11/13/2005 5:24:08 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

I don't think God abandons people. I think people abandon God.


109 posted on 11/13/2005 5:24:35 PM PST by Petronski (Cyborg is the greatest blessing I have ever known.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
...evolution has been sustained as a scientific theory for 146 years. That's longer than most current scientific theories of physics and chemistry have been sustained. Intelligent design has been sustained as a scientific theory for a grand total of zero years. To be clear, that's zero followed by an infinite number of zeros.

Yes, the fossil record is replete with evidence of evolving species.

110 posted on 11/13/2005 5:27:54 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: infidel29
I guess Santorum doesn't want to be re-elected after all.

Apparently not since all he appears to be is a Specter in training. The Dims certainly aren't going to support him.

111 posted on 11/13/2005 5:28:05 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

What else would you expect it to be?


It should slice, dice and splice the genes of mutant mice. It should be a juicer and a boost my gas mileage to over 102 per gallon. I'd like to take it out to the zoo and buy it red balloons and funnel cake. And it should keep the ice cream in my fridge from going melty, cure hang-overs, clip my toe nails and walk the dog.


112 posted on 11/13/2005 5:28:43 PM PST by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Actually, I had a rather odd thought. I wonder what ID'ers think about genetic manipulation. I mean, if the course of all biology on Earth was steered and managed, then they should have no problem with Humans tinkering around with the DNA sequences to "tweak" an attribute or two. After all, that would by definition be "Intelligent Design".

I would be willing to guess these folks would be against that.
113 posted on 11/13/2005 5:29:12 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
".....Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom........"

Thank God someones got some sense!!!!!!!!!!

114 posted on 11/13/2005 5:29:57 PM PST by DoctorMichael (The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
You're going to get tired saying the same thing over and over. It gets old.

I am already tired. People like you wear me out by refusing to understand what I am saying.

The message is timeless. It will be true a million years from now if the human race still exists. That is the point. It is ancient and it is timeless, some truths are eternal and have to be stated again and again.

I have no use for stupid people. They have murdered millions. Only logical, rational, ruthlessly truthful people are going to change anything.

Go have fun. You might grow up some day. Life is more than having fun.

115 posted on 11/13/2005 5:30:47 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Stop trashing language and the meaning of words. Thinking that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate portrayal of the reality of how species differentiated is not "faith."
"Faith" is a belief in the supernatural. Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.

Interesting, Evolution is a theory, has much evidence to support, and to suggest, but is not clearly and fully realized yet you believe in it. That DOES require some faith. Your faith is that the undiscovered will be discovered and answer the blanks. fill in the gaps, or to use a phrase fill in those "missing" links.

Don't lecture me on trashing of words and their meanings. You are conveniently predisposed to evolution being on solid enough ground as to be perfect in its presentation when it is still a work in much progress requiring more. Faith has meaning for you as well, here is your definition :Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

116 posted on 11/13/2005 5:31:01 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
The sad thing is I'm not even an aficionado of ID, but he did advocate it before and now he's flipping. I would rather elect a consistent, obvious lefty than a GOP waffler who'll screw you when you least expect it and need them on your side.

What this more than likely means is that Santorum really isn't that bright a bulb. It shows that he's likely not reasoned any of this out himself, even less reason to support him. If he had, then he'd not have changed his position.

I know of absolutely no one that upon reviewing the evidence pro/con for both theories in an intellectually honest and objective manner that has chosen evolution for any reason whatsoever.

117 posted on 11/13/2005 5:31:43 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Fruitbat
ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo.

You do know that ID means man evolved from a simple organism over millions of years ...

118 posted on 11/13/2005 5:31:53 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

"Ah, this is just typical MSM pitting one religious person against another. Santorum is Catholic so he is pro-evolution."

Maybe Santorum reads to read THIS:

“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.

Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.

excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage


119 posted on 11/13/2005 5:32:45 PM PST by Sun (Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Yes, the fossil record is replete with evidence of evolving species.

It sure looks that way! I'm glad you've noticed.

120 posted on 11/13/2005 5:32:45 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
...that science has no place with God. I say thats nonsense.

I have never suggested that---read my posts on this thread....carefully, please.

Science has limitations. Science is merely a method, a tool if you will for understanding, by human beings, the physical properties of human existance. At its conceptual outset, science does not deal with supernatural (or spiritual, in other words) phenomena. You might well consider that as an apology, for science was never designed by human beings to ascertain ALL knowledege---but only a limited slice thereof.

121 posted on 11/13/2005 5:32:54 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Yeah, the founders also thought that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women had zero rights to anything, and one (Jefferson) even believed that the 'lost tribe of Israel' would be found in the newly-acquired Louisiana Purchase, giving specific instructions to Meriwether Lewis on how to handle them if Lewis & Clark found them.

LOL!!. The 3/5ths clause was the first attack in government against slavery. Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!

122 posted on 11/13/2005 5:35:10 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Who was Lilith's mommy?


123 posted on 11/13/2005 5:35:42 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings


Have you ever heard of a lizard in a jar?


124 posted on 11/13/2005 5:37:00 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
"...Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!..."

Careful here, as you did not do too well yourself with Physics and that whole "2nd Law" thing a while back.
125 posted on 11/13/2005 5:37:38 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Actually, there are some Catholics who are pro-ID and/or anti-evolution theory.

I'm not an ID proponent; frankly, I don't know enough about it to make a judgment on it either way.

I would agree with you that the real problem here is the mixing of education and state, which inevitably leads to these kinds of conflicts.

Religion and values are a necessary part of education, but how do you impart same to kids in government schools in a pluralist society?

126 posted on 11/13/2005 5:38:52 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Your belief in evolution based on a preponderence of the evidence is not a real strong arguement IMO.  I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.  I don't seek to make that case.  Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.  Well, I disagree.

It's certaily your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.

"My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy."

Threads like this refute that perception.  Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban, just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.

If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.

Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove.  What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.

The holes in your evidence don't disuade me.  The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.  This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.  None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.

Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.  Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground.



127 posted on 11/13/2005 5:39:28 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Thanks for your final word on that.


128 posted on 11/13/2005 5:40:25 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace

I accept your answer, Rebel_Ace. You're saying that we evolved from a combination of events ranging from the sun and its activity to the earth going from superheated surface to cooler surface to molicules coming in from space to then arrive on the planet through our atmosphere after the cooling period, to mix with others to have the suns heat and nutrition combine with that mixing to form yet more complex organisms to then on and on and on to today. Is this what you are saying?


129 posted on 11/13/2005 5:40:46 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Good grief! Please don't tell me Santorum, of all people, is already choking and going the "moderate" route because he's running scared from the scumbag liberal Democrat press??

If so, he is chasing away the "broken glass" conservative base that gets him elected.
If so, he is toast.


130 posted on 11/13/2005 5:41:15 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda
[I fail to see how Catholic automatically = pro-evolution.]



The Catholic Church officially teaches evolution to students in its schools.

The nuns taught us evolution in science class and the symbolical story of creation in religion class.

I think the Catholic Church learned a valuable lesson from the fallout from their persecution of Galileo hundreds of years ago for his suggestion that the Earth traveled around the Sun and not the other way around.
131 posted on 11/13/2005 5:42:34 PM PST by spinestein (Screw the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Thanks for your question. Yes I do. I'd like to extend those remarks but I'm not able to keep up with the posts as it is. Leter.


132 posted on 11/13/2005 5:42:35 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
the case for Intelligent Design is based in science.

You missed the irony. That's all. I'm supposed to be having fun. I've been told.

One "wet iota" (see poet John Ciarti) of evidence for ID. That's all. Just one.

133 posted on 11/13/2005 5:42:44 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace
Humans tinkering around with the DNA sequences to "tweak" an attribute or two. After all, that would by definition be "Intelligent Design".

I certainly think we all should be against that since we have no real foreknowledge of the environmental future. Lberals may reproduce fewer offspring and, someday, the world will be wholly conservative.

Or...

And that's another debate altogether, BTW, 'cause we scientists can produce knowledge with which humankind can do terrible things.

I had one distinguised professor who put it thusly, "Our job is to discover, it's society's job to deal with it."

134 posted on 11/13/2005 5:42:49 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Fruitbat
[ID is backed by facts coming out the wazoo.]




This is true but not in the way you meant it.
135 posted on 11/13/2005 5:45:19 PM PST by spinestein (Screw the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

You know, "intelligent design" is about the crappiest name I ever heard for something purportedly undertaken by God. Whoever came up with the moniker "intelligent design", anyway? Yeccch.


136 posted on 11/13/2005 5:45:24 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

I've suggested more electives, but no one seems to want that. Give the families a choice. Offer rigid evolution classes as well as classes where you can criticize evolution. Let them choose which one they want and give them full credit either way. Adapt the standardized tests to reflect just a basic understanding of the core points without drawing conclusions. But noooooo....can't have that.


137 posted on 11/13/2005 5:45:43 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Rebel_Ace
"...Why not learn of a subject before your wield it as some form of argumentative weapon!..." Careful here, as you did not do too well yourself with Physics and that whole "2nd Law" thing a while back.

LOL!! You reply to me on the law of thermodynamics because I ASKED about it and call that wielding? Please Rebel, wait until I respond to you before you jump on me for it and besides, tell me where I am wrong about the 3/5ths clause....after all it happened in our countries history with a clear historical record to substantiate without question....what you and I are talking about regarding Evolution and ID is about things tens of thousands to millions of years old with no record other than what we have to painstakingly search for which in the minds of many is evidence that requires many interpretations finally acting in agreement.

138 posted on 11/13/2005 5:45:59 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

If you even remotely atune to some of the biological research that's been done in the area you wouldn't need to ask!

As I said, for those with the intellectual honesty and diligence to do the research, it's there. It's ridiculous of you to ask for a "synopsis" as you did revealing that you haven't even begun to do such research.

It's all out there partner!


139 posted on 11/13/2005 5:46:22 PM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
Once again, a creationist is presented with a full-on explanation of exactly why an assertion that they made is wrong. Does the creationist admit being in error? Of course not! The creationist simply changes the subject!
140 posted on 11/13/2005 5:47:01 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Okay, the evidence does not sustain what you folks claim it does. You love to make 'wink and a nod' comments about Christians who accept creation on faith, but then excuse away your belief in things that can't be proven as scientific.

The flimsey evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution (from single cell to man) is just that, flimsey. You can't point to another theory that you will accept, so yours must be the only one.

In the dark ages, it was the Christians who vilified scientific thinkers. Today it's the scientific thinkers turn.


141 posted on 11/13/2005 5:48:14 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

If you disagree, then please explain how ID does in fact meet the required criteria to be considered "theory". You could start with a hypothetical observation that would prove, without doubt, that Intelligent Design is false. If there is no definable falsification criteria, then ID can be rejected right there.


142 posted on 11/13/2005 5:48:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
There are huge gaping holes in the lineage of single celled organisms to man. You guys have no answer for that that cannot be shot down. Therefore, it is a falsehood to claim that the theory of man's assencion from single celled organism is anything more than a faith based belief system.

As the old saying goes, "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

Demonstrating that something might not be correct doesn't prove anything else true. This is what you won't deal with. You can "prove" evolution false all day long but that doesn't prove ID correct. Nothing can prove ID correct.

Deal with it.

143 posted on 11/13/2005 5:48:55 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The flimsey evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution (from single cell to man) is just that, flimsey.

Why is it flimsy?

You can't point to another theory that you will accept, so yours must be the only one.

What other theories are there? Be specific, and explain exactly how the explanations that you give meet the requirements to be considered "theory".
144 posted on 11/13/2005 5:49:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Actually it is the other way around, since Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion, and the case for Intelligent Design is based in science. Hence Santorum is merely running with the shallow-thinking herd of hard-core secularists who oppose true science and open inquiry.

Really? Well I guess that with such a bold claim you have tons of evidence for this. Please share some of this evidence with the rest of us. Exactly what science does ID use? What theory, what falsifiable criteria, what predictions have been made and verified?

145 posted on 11/13/2005 5:52:21 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Once again, a creationist is presented with a full-on explanation of exactly why an assertion that they made is wrong. Does the creationist admit being in error? Of course not! The creationist simply changes the subject!

LOL!!! This is goofy...my reply is more of asking for clarification. Thanks for playing!

146 posted on 11/13/2005 5:52:23 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

LOL, which is a claim I could make about evolution as well.

I cannot claim that mans evolution from a single cell is impossible. I've never sought to.

Thanks for the comments.


147 posted on 11/13/2005 5:52:41 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"...I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin..."

The complexity argument is actually weak. Let me illustrate with an example:

Suppose I looked at a sample of red balls and yellow balls. My first observation is that these red balls and yellow balls seem to appear without exception in groups of three. "That's odd," I might think, "It looks like SOMEONE grouped them all together in groups of three."

I look further and find that not only are they ALL grouped in triplets, without exception they are grouped as two reds and one yellow. NEVER two yellows and one red. "This clinches it!" I think. "These MUST have been arranged by SOMEONE. The order is TOO PERFECT. The arrangment TOO PRECISE. This cannot be random, SOME AGENT must have ordered this."

However, if I take the same example above, and substitute HYDROGEN ATOMS for "red balls" and OXYGEN ATOMS for "yellow balls", and allow them to "mix" in a sponteaneous reaction of uncontrolled combustion, I will get EXACTLY this result. Water will form as H20. Millions and millions of atoms, all sorted into threes, all of the same configuration.

Seemingly complex results can arise from a few simple rules, repeated over and over. The fact that the rules might not yet be understood does not necessiarily imply that an intelligent agent is at work.
148 posted on 11/13/2005 5:52:54 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Nothing can prove ID correct.

Or incorrect, for that matter. That's the whole problem with it.

149 posted on 11/13/2005 5:53:02 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
LOL, which is a claim I could make about evolution as well.

Since you didn't quote the exact text to what you are responding, I don't know exactly what you mean by this. That it isn't falsifiable? The theory of evolution is falsifiable. Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil. Find a transposon in whales and cows that does not exist in hippos.
150 posted on 11/13/2005 5:53:52 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-686 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson