this thread shouldn't be 3 pages

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : dammit i made it 3 ]

6/2/2007 10:23:27 PM

Quote :

"the fact that this topic has been discussed so much and continues to be discussed should tell most people that its not as one-sided of an issue as they would like to believe"

Using that reasoning, evolution is still debatable, too.

6/3/2007 12:52:51 AM

NEWSFLASH:

Quote :

"debate continues to flourish about the heliocentric nature of the solar system. three prominent scientists agree that the "evidence for a sun-centered universe is inconclusive". the Kansas Board of Education is hearing arguments from geocentric advoctates requesting stickers being placed on science textbooks warning that Heliocentric model is "just a theory""

6/3/2007 2:50:08 AM

^i would probably resort to insane comparisons if i too was scared about the fact that i didnt
really know anything relevant

^^i hope you dont dumb down your students with complete bullshit like that

6/3/2007 3:42:56 AM

Btw, here's a world-renown biochemist who has rejected evolution. Therefore, the scientific origins of man are still debatable.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

6/3/2007 10:42:31 AM

^well then, on the topic of evolution...or climate change...or anything...if there indeed is some debate its at least the teacher's/professor's job to inform the students that there is debate and to let them make up their own minds...i personally believe in evolution based on fossil data, seeing resemblances between different animals in different places, seeing how certain animals seem to have evolved certain claws or body systems to help their survival, etc...but evolution just currently seems like it makes the most sense...maybe some day another theory will come out that makes even more sense to everybody

6/3/2007 2:21:50 PM

See: fallacy of equal time

6/3/2007 2:23:46 PM

There's this electrician who is 100% certain that Einstein's mass-energy conversion equation is wrong. He says that is off by a factor of the speed of light, which is to say the correct equation is E=mc. He has spent years trying to convince physics departments and scientists around the country that his position is valid. They pretty much all ignore him or mention that, you know, the units don't even match up. He says that shouldn't matter.

Should this be mentioned as an alternative in science classes?

6/3/2007 2:30:19 PM

Yes.

In other news, I've decided to replace my US History textbook with A People's History of the United States

6/3/2007 2:34:09 PM

apples and oranges

6/3/2007 2:35:00 PM

No, these are actually very apt analogies.

6/3/2007 2:37:01 PM

not at all

6/3/2007 2:37:43 PM

This Thai Cashew leftover from Sushi Thai is as awesome reheated as it was last night.

6/3/2007 2:38:08 PM

How are they not all examples of equal time fallacies?

I mean, hell-- at least Zinn's work is widely appreciated. This Canadian guys you keep citing are nobodies, yet you insist that their skepticism is cause enough to continue a debate that everyone else have already moved past.

[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2007 2:40:17 PM

i guess we shouldnt have even mentioned the wacko idea of evolution back when creationism was the consensus

6/3/2007 2:41:42 PM

Talk about apples and oranges.

They had the debate, evolution won, and then they moved on

[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2007 2:44:05 PM

Quote :

"They had the debate"

yeah theres a pretty big difference in having a debate and saying "There is no debate"

Are you yourself for censoring the climate change debate?

6/3/2007 2:46:54 PM

Haha, ok Treeburyboy,

They can argue all they want, but until they come up with persuasive evidence for their case, they shouldn't be given equal time with 98% of climate scientists.

6/3/2007 2:54:40 PM

so you are for censoring the debate...just making sure i didnt misinterpret you

i guess if thats what they print in your high school science books it must be the right thing to go with...dont talk to any PhDs at State yourself or anything like that...they're probably all paid off by Exxon...just close your ears when an opposing view comes along since you're old enough and smart enough to understand everything

ps: they have plenty of persuasive evidence...but people like you choose to ignore it because you've bought into the horrendously innaccurate theory that anybody who doesn't blindly believe humans are destroying the planet has financial interests from oil company stock

6/3/2007 2:58:38 PM

censorship = not equal time

In Trollsville

6/3/2007 3:38:48 PM

Quote :

"There is no debate"

= censorship

6/3/2007 3:44:17 PM

Boone, why bother?

6/3/2007 4:47:51 PM

Blind Hate, why bother to live?

6/3/2007 5:17:47 PM

Because I love Thai food.

6/3/2007 5:34:21 PM

Massaman Beef Curry ... four star spicy

6/4/2007 12:27:46 AM

"there is no debate" is a common figure of speech.

There is a debate, but the anti-climate-changers have so far failed to gain traction, because their ideas aren't compelling enough, and don't have enough support. Once this happens, then there will be meaningful debate. This has not happened.

6/4/2007 12:33:26 AM

actually, it's not that their evidence isn't compelling. it's that any time any one brings up genuine evidence, people shoot back with "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!!!" so they never get heard.

6/4/2007 8:47:03 PM