Rick Santorum

Drew Smith wrote:

You still haven't addressed these questions: In his NPR interview, did he rule out teaching "intelligent design" in some classroom *other* than science? Is "intelligent design" an example of the use of critical thinking, given that it isn't supported by any evidence?...

That's a complex question, why don't you tell us what you think?

.

Gay And Proud wrote:

No, the burden of proof is upon the individuals proposing the theory. They are the ones who need to provide evidence and argument to support the theory. So far, the proponents of "ID" have failed.[]

I agree, we have no argument here. Evolutionists must provide proof, that's the burden.

.

Gay And Proud wrote:

I will ask you yet again: In his NPR interview, did he rule out teaching "intelligent design" in some classroom *other* than science? Yes or no?

I didn't listen to it all, the transcript I read was clear, he doesn't support teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms. I call that "wise".

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's a complex question, why don't you tell us what you think?
.
<quoted text>I agree, we have no argument here. Evolutionists must provide proof, that's the burden.
.
<quoted text>I didn't listen to it all, the transcript I read was clear, he doesn't support teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms. I call that "wise".

How old are you?

Five?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's a complex question, why don't you tell us what you think?
.
<quoted text>I agree, we have no argument here. Evolutionists must provide proof, that's the burden.
.
<quoted text>I didn't listen to it all, the transcript I read was clear, he doesn't support teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms. I call that "wise".

There is an enormous Body of Evidence as well as Evidence of common descent of living things discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over the past 150 years, the most recent being the Human Genome Project (HGP) completed in 2003. This evidence has “demonstrated and verified” the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how life developed and why life changes over time.

Evolution doesn't explain how life developed, faith based science doesn't cut it.

Brian_G wrote:

Evolution doesn't explain how life developed, faith based science doesn't cut it.

We'll accept this as an admission that you're scientifically ignorant.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Brian_G wrote:

Evolution doesn't explain how life developed, faith based science doesn't cut it.

Evolution doesn't predict the weather, either. Not doing something it was not intended to is not a weakness.

----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

Discord wrote:

Evolution doesn't predict the weather, either. Not doing something it was not intended to is not a weakness.[]

Ask Frank about that, he confused creation with evolution. If you take your science on dogma, any challenge implies weakness. To a strong argument, not doing something it was intended to do is a weakness.

Kong_ wrote:

We'll accept this as an admission that you're scientifically ignorant. Thank you for clearing that up.

I've never claimed to be a scientist, it's not my job to experimentally test theory and teach fact to students. Where did you get the idea that my science is any better than yours?

Creation and evolution are two theories about two different phenomena, Intelligent Design is a challenge to both. Evolution can defend itself, doesn't need my help.

Political differences need all our attention. That's why I defend Rick Santorum from defamation and call out the interruption of civil discourse.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I've never claimed to be a scientist, it's not my job to experimentally test theory and teach fact to students. Where did you get the idea that my science is any better than yours?

You've adequately demonstrated that both you AND your buddy Santorum are ill-equipped to decide on topics related to science.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Creation and evolution are two theories about two different phenomena, Intelligent Design is a challenge to both.

Wrong. "Creationism" is not science, it is the antithesis of science and scientific progress.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Evolution can defend itself, doesn't need my help.

Truer words have never been spoken or written.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Political differences need all our attention. That's why I defend Rick Santorum from defamation and call out the interruption of civil discourse.

And in researching my responses to you on this thread, I have become more aware of the ignorance of Rick Santorum as it pertains to science, and of his true political intentions.

Hopefully you've succeeded only in helping me point this out to others reading this thread who were on the fence.

Good job!

Kong_ wrote:

...Wrong. "Creationism" is not science, it is the antithesis of science and scientific progress.

I wrote "creation" not creationism. I'm sorry for your prejudice, it skewers your reality.

.

Kong_ wrote:

Truer words have never been spoken or written...

Can't say the same for your posts.

Brian_G wrote:

Evolution doesn't explain how life developed, faith based science doesn't cut it.

Since IDC is faith based and evolution is based on evidence rather than faith, that's not a problem.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Ask Frank about that, he confused creation with evolution. If you take your science on dogma, any challenge implies weakness. To a strong argument, not doing something it was intended to do is a weakness.

We thank you for continuously not addressing the content of other people's posts. It's a perfect demonstration of your lack of honesty. You truly are Ricky's protege.

Ignorance is always the problem, you can't change human nature. Teach someone and they forget...

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I've never claimed to be a scientist, it's not my job to experimentally test theory and teach fact to students. Where did you get the idea that my science is any better than yours?
Creation and evolution are two theories about two different phenomena,

No they aren't. There is no theory of creation. You've just alluded to Kong you're not talking about creationISM, in which case you're not talking science as you're incapable of using correct scientific terminology.

Brian_G wrote:

Intelligent Design is a challenge to both.

No it isn't. It's a pseudo-scientific sham which has not, does not, and has never been about science. It's religious apologetics designed to circumvent separation of church and state. It failed. In terms of science it hasn't bothered getting near the starting block. Hence it never will be science, because the creationists that invented it aren't interested in doing anything scientific to support it.

Brian_G wrote:

Evolution can defend itself, doesn't need my help.
Political differences need all our attention. That's why I defend Rick Santorum from defamation and call out the interruption of civil discourse.

Santorum is a lying fundie theocrat who wants to ignore the Constitution in order to make policy consistent with his particular religious beliefs, with links to nutty lying theocrats who want to ignore the Constitution in order to make policy consistent with their religious beliefs, the evidence of which has already been presented on this thread. His scientific ignorance is as great as yours, and he has no interest in the subject other than to undermine it.

Brian_G wrote:

Ignorance is always the problem, you can't change human nature. Teach someone and they forget...

Which is why you forget what you find politically inconvenient - which is most of this thread.(shrug)

The Dude wrote:

We thank you for continuously not addressing the content of other people's posts. It's a perfect demonstration of your lack of honesty. You truly are Ricky's protege.

Your right, I don't always address other people's concerns, my bad. I've demonstrated how Rick Santorum shares my values, campaigning against the TARP benefits, unlike every other candidate except Ron Paul. Sure, Romney is against TARP today but he supported it when it was debated and passed in Congress.

There is a difference between addressing real issues and ignoring straw man and invalid arguments. You call that honest, I think judgement is more accurate. I'll tell you what content I won't address and why.

People who discuss issues are solving them, people blaming and defaming don't. Political systems involve compromise, because we deal with reality. The courts are a poor forum for deciding new marriage law, that's because of the adversarial nature of judicial process.

Life's winners and losers; did you know every homosexual had a mom AND dad?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Your right, I don't always address other people's concerns, my bad. I've demonstrated how Rick Santorum shares my values, campaigning against the TARP benefits, unlike every other candidate except Ron Paul. Sure, Romney is against TARP today but he supported it when it was debated and passed in Congress.
There is a difference between addressing real issues and ignoring straw man and invalid arguments. You call that honest, I think judgement is more accurate. I'll tell you what content I won't address and why.
People who discuss issues are solving them, people blaming and defaming don't.

Santorum isn't solving anything education-wise. That's not defamation, we have already demonstrated his scientific ignorance and theocratic agenda. Discussions have to be valid. But if you get idiots demanding the SLoT is a "legitimate challenge" to evolution, the discussion becomes irrelevant.

See that's the thing Bri, we discuss the issues, and you don't address them. And have admitted to such.

Brian_G wrote:

Political systems involve compromise, because we deal with reality.

Not necessarily, the political system is supposed to uphold the law. If the law guarantees freedom to everyone, we shouldn't just say "Well that doesn't have to apply to black people!"

Unfortunately in reality, things like that do happen...

Brian_G wrote:

The courts are a poor forum for deciding new marriage law, that's because of the adversarial nature of judicial process.
Life's winners and losers; did you know every homosexual had a mom AND dad?

That's nice, G-man. But the fact is that if equal rights are to be guaranteed to all, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Santorum is against this, and you are too since you support him. You can discuss this all you like but it will not solve the problem unless Santorum decides to change his mind and support equal rights.

The Dude wrote:

Santorum isn't solving anything education-wise. That's not defamation, we have already demonstrated his scientific ignorance and theocratic agenda...

That's the key, his theocratic agenda is in political opposition to yours. The sacrament of abortion, dogmatic unwillingness to debate issues disguised by "equality" and the struggle against ignorance. You've got it good, the default position is, whatever floats your boat. Progressivism is easy, dealing with the consequences is hard. Look at the penalty for over funding a welfare state, sovereign debt crisis, devaluation, decline and street riots.

Say no to the mob and Obama in 2012.

Brian_G wrote:

Ignorance is always the problem, you can't change human nature. Teach someone and they forget...

THAT'S the truth, as evidenced by the radical conservatives we have vomiting nonsense these days...

This person nails Santorum well:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-...

Can't get much uglier than that! Welcome to the Stone Age again...

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text> ...I'm sorry for your prejudice, it skewers your reality...

Looking in the mirror when you wrote this?