Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
I love how, when I respond to your posts paragraph by paragraph, present my arguments, provide factual analysis, and wait for a reply, the response is ignore any semblance of a logical discussion, and just resort to ridiculous name calling.   

I especially like how taxed calls me an "uneducated person", and then leaves it at that.  No need to actually posit an argument, with facts...that's just overrated.

Or how me using asterisks is somehow relevant to the empirical validity of my points.

I don't mean it as an insult, Sci Fi.  The fact is, you are discussing topics you are very uneducated on.  I understand you want to dispute that, but the fact is, like the minimum wage thread for example, you don't understand supply and demand, and have no idea about business.  In the EPA thread, you mentioned "rapidly depleting resources", but didn't back it up, despite multiple requests.  You are at a disadvantage, since you are repeating liberal propaganda, but liberalism has to compete with knowledge and experience.  Sci Fi, the members on this board have real world experience.  As evident in the minimum wage thread, despite you saying I don't argue with facts, I address every point you have with facts.  Please start to do the same.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.

They don't teach anything in public classrooms, so the OP is moot.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
They don't teach anything in public classrooms, so the OP is moot.

Yet there are many influential factions in the right that want intelligent design to be taught in public classrooms.  And this isn't a vocal minority of religious fanatics; plenty of mainstream republican candidates have advocated for intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

As for my level of experience on this issue, unless you majored in the sciences, your business credentials are entirely irrelevant to the topic.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
Yet there are many influential factions in the right that want intelligent design to be taught in public classrooms.  And this isn't a vocal minority of religious fanatics; plenty of mainstream republican candidates have advocated for intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

You tie intelligent design to religion.  I am not religious, and I believe we were created.  You are advocating for teaching something we don't know about, and against teaching something we don't know about?

Quote
As for my level of experience on this issue, unless you majored in the sciences, your business credentials are entirely irrelevant to the topic.

Sorry dude.  No one knows how the hell we got here.  Stephen Hawking has no idea how we got here.  You can have faith with how we got here, which I agree with, or throw your hands up and say "I have no idea", which I also agree with.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 11:57:06 AM
You tie intelligent design to religion.  I am not religious, and I believe we were created.  You are advocating for teaching something we don't know about, and against teaching something we don't know about?
Sorry dude.  No one knows how the hell we got here.  Stephen Hawking has no idea how we got here.  You can have faith with how we got here, which I agree with, or throw your hands up and say "I have no idea", which I also agree with.

Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.  To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:06:41 PM
Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.

Same with intelligent design.

Quote
To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

Yet, you don't want to allow teaching of intelligent design?

Quote
And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

This is where liberals start getting into trouble (see hockey stick global warming).  Yes, I have no idea how we got here.  I have theories.  Am I up to speed on the space and time like Hawking?  Of course not.  Unlike you, I don't pretend we have the meaning of life figured out, so am open to all points of view.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:06:41 PM
Appeal to ignorance.  Evolution is a well accepted, researched and peer reviewed scientific theory with mounds of evidence supporting it.  To say that we cannot teach it just because we don't know for absolute, 100% certainty is the equivalent of arguing that we cannot teach that the Egyptians built the pyramids because we technically cannot know, for absolutely certainty, that the alien conspiracy theorists are right, and extraterrestrial beings actually built it.

And you're wrong in saying that someone like Hawking has "no idea how we got here".  He will, of course, admit, that in science there is technically no *absolute* certainty, and that nobody can say in good conscience that the certainty level of any theory, including gravitational theory, is 100%.  Yet no idea?  Does this posit that theories with massive amounts of evidences supporting them are incorrect, simply because the certainty level must always approach 100% but never reach it?

Consensus is not proof, and you don't seem to understand that ALL truly scientific theories must be subject to disproof. For it to really be science we must understand that a theory only lasts until abetter theory comes along. And we must consider all new theories and never dismiss them out of hand because they contradict a theory which is generally accepted. Remember, they laughed and Wegener when he purposed that continents move.

And I think the answer to what should and shouldn't be taught in public schools, is to get away from our current idea of public schools, and go to a voucher system. You send your kids to the school that only teaches consensus, "accepted" science. I'll send my kids to the school that brings all theories into the classroom, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of eachl of them.

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 12:17:53 PM
Same with intelligent design.

No.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Quote
Yet, you don't want to allow teaching of intelligent design?

Because you also cannot turn this argument around and say "we should teach every proposed alternative, no matter how lacking in evidence the hypothesis is."  If this were the case, we would have to teach ancient Greek creation "theory" alongside Hindu creation myth and 911 conspiracy theories.  None of this applies to Evolution theory, which has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt by centuries of accumulated evidence.

Quote
This is where liberals start getting into trouble (see hockey stick global warming).  Yes, I have no idea how we got here.  I have theories.

Are these theories based on faith or science?  If the former, you certainly would not advocate teaching this is public schooling.  Why would one want to teach intelligent design for the same reason?

QuoteAm I up to speed on the space and time like Hawking?  Of course not.  Unlike you, I don't pretend we have the meaning of life figured out,

No science curriculum posits that Evolution theory is complete.  But similarly, gravitational theory is not complete either; this inherent fact of science does not mean that we should not teach what we know.

Additionally, I would mention that all intelligent design proponents who are religious (which is practically everyone, except you) believe that their theory on Earth's creation is complete, divinely inspired and 100%, unequivocally correct.  That comes with basing theories solely on religious beliefs.

Quote

so am open to all points of view.

Yes, but being open to all points of views does not mean that you should accept them all as equally possible.  You're appealing to a golden mean fallacy here; without reading their minds, you cannot know for certain if George W Bush did not know about the September 11 attacks, so should we teach it as an equally possible theory in history class?

QuoteNo.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Couple of points, you keep conflating intelligent design and creationism. They are actually two different theories. Something someone who purports to be as intelligent as you do, should understand. And again you appeal to consensus. I guess that's understandable in an AGW true believer like you, but again consensus isn't proof. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 12:29:15 PM
No.  There is no evidence supporting intelligent design.  No nationally recognized scientific community endorses intelligent design "theory".  There is one "peer reviewed" creationist journal in the entire United States that I can find.

Sci Fi, to say there is no credible theory that humans were placed on Earth is not correct.  You are too busy fighting against what liberals put in your brain as a belief by 'uneducated bible-thumping rednecks'.  I am pretty facinated on this topic, and because I have done so much reading on theology, and how it can tie into the universe, I know enough to say that I have no idea.  You go ahead and shut your brain off after you have been told evolution is the only accepted theory.  Meanwhile, the oceans are still populated.

Quote
Because you also cannot turn this argument around and say "we should teach every proposed alternative, no matter how lacking in evidence the hypothesis is."  If this were the case, we would have to teach ancient Greek creation "theory" alongside Hindu creation myth and 911 conspiracy theories.  None of this applies to Evolution theory, which has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt by centuries of accumulated evidence.

Not sure where 911 came into this (but libs tend to go off the rails and shift the subject), but if a science class is to teach the subject, first I would be amazed that kids would learn something, but I would have no problem with the teacher getting the kids to think and open their mind about possibilities.  If some kids believe God put us here, then great.  If others think the oceans were a lesser environment than land, and decided to migrate to land (and not land to the oceans), then great.  I don't have a problem with an educated teacher teaching different theories.

Quote
Are these theories based on faith or science?  If the former, you certainly would not advocate teaching this is public schooling.  Why would one want to teach intelligent design for the same reason?

How can you teach what you don't know?  I know liberals do that, but what about for us thinking people?

Quote
No science curriculum posits that Evolution theory is complete.  But similarly, gravitational theory is not complete either; this inherent fact of science does not mean that we should not teach what we know.

We don't know how we got here.  We know there is gravity.  Teaching physics is quite all right.  I wish schools would teach physics.

Quote
Additionally, I would mention that all intelligent design proponents who are religious (which is practically everyone, except you) believe that their theory on Earth's creation is complete, divinely inspired and 100%, unequivocally correct.  That comes with basing theories solely on religious beliefs.

Wrong.  You really need to push through your misconceptions and educate yourself.

Quote
Yes, but being open to all points of views does not mean that you should accept them all as equally possible.  You're appealing to a golden mean fallacy here; without reading their minds, you cannot know for certain if George W Bush did not know about the September 11 attacks, so should we teach it as an equally possible theory in history class?

Ahhh.  You couldn't help yourself, I know.

No, don't be a moron.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
...I think you're confusing threads here.  We're discussing the teaching of intelligent design in public classrooms; ie, middle schools and high schools.

Nope, just expanding on education, considering this is about classrooms, right?

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 12:55:48 PM
Sci Fi, to say there is no credible theory that humans were placed on Earth is not correct. 

Fine then.  Show me the evidence.

Quote

Not sure where 911 came into this (but libs tend to go off the rails and shift the subject),

Simple; you suggest that we should teach all alternative theories in school, just because they exist.  So explain to me why we do not teach 911 conspiracy theories in history classes.

Oh, wait, it's because they aren't supported by any evidence, isn't it?  Kind of applies here as well.   

Quotebut if a science class is to teach the subject, first I would be amazed that kids would learn something, but I would have no problem with the teacher getting the kids to think and open their mind about possibilities.  If some kids believe God put us here, then great.  If others think the oceans were a lesser environment than land, and decided to migrate to land (and not land to the oceans), then great.  I don't have a problem with an educated teacher teaching different theories.

It's fallacious thinking to say that all theories hold equal weight to one another.  For example, conventional current flow is not taught as being a possible alternative to electron flow in science classrooms because it isn't real.  Similarly, we do not teach that aliens may have built the Egyptian pyramids, because it isn't a very credible theory.

Quote
How can you teach what you don't know?  I know liberals do that, but what about for us thinking people?

Because we do know* Evolution theory.  It has been substantiated by a very large collection of evidence.  The same does not apply to ID.

*"know" beyond a reasonable doubt.  Your continuous insistence that we don't know for *sure* also applies to whether or not Julius Caesar ever existed.  We're pretty darn sure he did; we have evidence (just like evolution) and records (just like evolution), but it's always possible that all of this is false.  Who knows?

Based on your criteria (we must know for certain to teach something), we would not be able to teach anything in the sciences, economics or history.

Quote
We don't know how we got here.

Yes, we do.  That you don't know doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

I know you think that not accepting a well supported theory just because you "don't know!" for certain if it's true or not is being "open minded".  It is not.  It is being intellectually lazy.  Not all theories are equally plausible; some are objectively wrong, and others are more supportable with evidence.  To treat them all equally regardless of their merits is strangely Marxist of you.

QuoteWe know there is gravity.

But the theory is far from complete; for example, we do not know why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces.  Does this mean we should not teach it?

Furthermore, quantum mechanics are significantly sketchier than evolution theory, and the holes between the two are not even remotely comparable in size, so why is there no controversy over teaching the former?

Quote

  Teaching physics is quite all right.  I wish schools would teach physics.

So do I...

Quote
Wrong.  You really need to push through your misconceptions and educate yourself.

Your high sounding rhetoric doesn't change the fact that the bible is infallible according to the church's dogma; that they believe this is not a disputed fact.

Quote
Ahhh.  You couldn't help yourself, I know.

No, don't be a moron.

I love how your simplistic thought process just sees the word "George W Bush" and assumes that I am smearing him, without bothering to read context, and without realizing that I was defending him.   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 14, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Fine then.  Show me the evidence.

Do your own research.  Start with structures on Cydonia on Mars, and how they mirror the Giza pyramids, and how they scale perfectly with the belt of Orion.  Or how the monolith on Phobos got there.  Or any of the many unexplained stuff on Earth and the planets.  As you are researching, start asking yourself how the fish crawled out of the oceans, built the pyramids, traveled to different planets, then made it back in time to invent the iPhone.  There is plenty of material for you to research.

Quote
Simple; you suggest that we should teach all alternative theories in school, just because they exist.  So explain to me why we do not teach 911 conspiracy theories in history classes.

Because that would be stupid.

Quote
Oh, wait, it's because they aren't supported by any evidence, isn't it?  Kind of applies here as well.   

It's not my fault you aren't well read.

Quote
It's fallacious thinking to say that all theories hold equal weight to one another.  For example, conventional current flow is not taught as being a possible alternative to electron flow in science classrooms because it isn't real.  Similarly, we do not teach that aliens may have built the Egyptian pyramids, because it isn't a very credible theory.

You should probably listen to this kid.  Good advice.

TEDxTeen - Jacob Barnett: Forget What You Know

Quote
Because we do know* Evolution theory.  It has been substantiated by a very large collection of evidence.  The same does not apply to ID.

*"know" beyond a reasonable doubt.  Your continuous insistence that we don't know for *sure* also applies to whether or not Julius Caesar ever existed.  We're pretty darn sure he did; we have evidence (just like evolution) and records (just like evolution), but it's always possible that all of this is false.  Who knows?

Wrong.  We know more about Julius Caesar than the theory of evolution.  Think, son, think!

Quote
Based on your criteria (we must know for certain to teach something), we would not be able to teach anything in the sciences, economics or history.

You really are having a very hard time with this whole "thinking" thing.

Quote
Yes, we do.  That you don't know doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

You don't know.  You are choosing to cement in your brain what someone else came up with and concluded from evidence.

Quote
I know you think that not accepting a well supported theory just because you "don't know!" for certain if it's true or not is being "open minded".  It is not.  It is being intellectually lazy.  Not all theories are equally plausible; some are objectively wrong, and others are more supportable with evidence.  To treat them all equally regardless of their merits is strangely Marxist of you.

I am smart enough to know what I don't know.  That doesn't prevent me from learning and thinking.  I can receive input into my brain and process the data.  Me being able to say I don't know how we got here allows me to continue learning and thinking.  Meanwhile, you are set on what you think you know, hence why your brain shuts down and is incapable of thinking.

Quote
But the theory is far from complete; for example, we do not know why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces.

Very good!  I knew I could teach you a new trick.

Quote
Does this mean we should not teach it?

Not at all.  We can teach what we think we know.  Teach what we know, then let the thinking take flight!

Quote
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are significantly sketchier than evolution theory, and the holes between the two are not even remotely comparable in size, so why is there no controversy over teaching the former?

Because someone like Sci Fi Fan thinks the science is settled.  For example, your quip in the other thread about "rapidly depleting resources".  Where did you get that from?  You don't think, yet you parrot.

Quote
So do I...

I doubt that.  You can't be pro-union and pro-teaching at the same time.

Quote
Your high sounding rhetoric doesn't change the fact that the bible is infallible according to the church's dogma; that they believe this is not a disputed fact.

That upsets you why?

Quote
I love how your simplistic thought process just sees the word "George W Bush" and assumes that I am smearing him, without bothering to read context, and without realizing that I was defending him.   

I did read it, and you were ambiguous.

Fascinating. Because you find a theory isn't in line with conventional wisdom, instead of bringing it into the open classroom - where it can either be supported or demolished - you would prefer that we "banish" it from polite society, and never speak of it again. So you think the Pope should have punished Galileo, after all his theory of a heliocentric solar system did go against the consensus science of the day.

Alright, Taxed.  How do I put this.



You correctly point out that Evolution theory is incomplete. 


What you do not understand is that this isn't an either/or proposition.  No theory is ever considered entirely unchallengeable and complete.  You're assuming that, because both Evolution and ID are not 100% conclusive, both should be carried with equal weight. 

Once again, it is not an either/or.  If you were to scale the level of completeness:


[basic] Laws of Thermodynamics
Obama's life
Lincoln's life
Caesar's life
Evolution theory / gravitational theory

911
Quantum Theory


The Mayans


.....



....


...


Intelligent Design
Spontaneous Combustion



Do you see why your logic falls flat?

Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2012, 04:55:24 PM
Do your own research.  Start with structures on Cydonia on Mars, and how they mirror the Giza pyramids, and how they scale perfectly with the belt of Orion.  Or how the monolith on Phobos got there.  Or any of the many unexplained stuff on Earth and the planets.

And these random curiosities compare to a mountain of fossil records, genetic links and observable similarities between multitudes of alive and extinct species...how?

Quote

As you are researching, start asking yourself how the fish crawled out of the oceans, built the pyramids, traveled to different planets, then made it back in time to invent the iPhone.  There is plenty of material for you to research.

Now you're just appealing to your own incredulity.  Over billions of years, this isn't at all implausible.  And there is real evidence supporting Evolution theory, not curious photographs.

Ask yourself how you came from being a fertilized egg to typing on a computer today. 

Quote

Because that would be stupid.

Care to elaborate more?

Quote
It's not my fault you aren't well read.

ROFLAMO.  Knowing about the Cydonia isn't being "well read", Taxed.  It's watching too much popular news.

Quote
You should probably listen to this kid.  Good advice.

TEDxTeen - Jacob Barnett: Forget What You Know

You're appealing to the Golden Mean fallacy.  Explain why we should not teach ancient Greek creation myths, then.  Or that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and is related to Harry Oswald.

Quote
Wrong.  We know more about Julius Caesar than the theory of evolution.  Think, son, think!

Whoop!  So you admit that there are varying levels of uncertainty.  We don't know for certain who Caesar was; but that doesn't mean that it is equally incomplete with everything else that is uncertain (which is everything).

Apply this to evolution.

To try another analogy, explain why we should teach the existence of dinosaurs and their suspected habits in public schools.

Quote
You really are having a very hard time with this whole "thinking" thing.

Do you really think that your complete lack of knowledge on the subject isn't showing through?

Quote
You don't know.  You are choosing to cement in your brain what someone else came up with and concluded from evidence.

You see, that's the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Evolution has evidence.  Intelligent design does not; and no, one curious looking structure on an entire planet does not constitute as any more than a sensationalistic newspaper headline.  You do not conclude anything from the above.

Quote

I am smart enough to know what I don't know.  That doesn't prevent me from learning and thinking. 

But you aren't thinking.  You look at intelligent design and evolution, conclude that neither are absolutely certain, and therefore conclude that it's a wash, and that both theories are equally inconclusive.  You think that it's an either/or proposition, of either being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or being equally skeptical.

Quote
I can receive input into my brain and process the data.  Me being able to say I don't know how we got here allows me to continue learning and thinking.  Meanwhile, you are set on what you think you know, hence why your brain shuts down and is incapable of thinking.

You do not know whether or not 911 was planned by the government.  The evidence quite conclusively suggests that it was not, but there's always the possibility, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not know.

Should we teach it in history class?

Quote
Very good!  I knew I could teach you a new trick.

So by your logic, we cannot teach general relativity.  It has yet to be reconciled with quantum theory; so, but all accounts, it could be (probably is) incomplete. 

But we still teach it.

In fact, gravitational theory is significantly less complete than Evolution.  Should we not teach it?

Quote
Not at all.  We can teach what we think we know.  Teach what we know, then let the thinking take flight!

I think you're committing a massive strawman across your entire argument; you're assuming that I think Evolution theory is complete.  It is not.  It is, however, significantly more complete than ID.  Do you think that all theories are equally plausible?

Quote
Because someone like Sci Fi Fan thinks the science is settled.  For example, your quip in the other thread about "rapidly depleting resources".  Where did you get that from?  You don't think, yet you parrot.

Nope.  You never answered the question: explain why we teach quantum mechanics in class, without any controversy, when it is significantly less complete than evolution.

Quote
I doubt that.  You can't be pro-union and pro-teaching at the same time.

I'm not very pro-union in your interpretation of the word.

Quote
That upsets you why?

Because you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?