People, please....

ad hominem ad infinitum...

Personal attacks are not argument. It does show the content of your character.

agreed. How about answering a few question when you get off that cross. Nobody is persecuting you. just asking questions.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

People, please....

ad hominem ad infinitum...

Personal attacks are not argument. It does show the content of your character.

You keep repeating this ad hominem line. Please link one instance of such an attack against you.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

People, please....

ad hominem ad infinitum...

Personal attacks are not argument. It does show the content of your character.

ID, you are correct about ad hominem, however your arguments are generally found to be disingenuous. You usually prattle drivel rather than answering simple yes or no questions. With that behavior how can anybody take you seriously? AS we have discussed previously your tenor of nonsense rivals The Dull One.

---

People, please....

ad hominem ad infinitum...

Personal attacks are not argument. It does show the content of your character.

ID, you are correct about ad hominem, however your arguments are generally found to be disingenuous. You usually prattle drivel rather than answering simple yes or no questions. With that behavior how can anybody take you seriously? AS we have discussed previously your tenor of nonsense rivals The Dull One.

Your understanding of the simple is lacking. Put 2 and 2 together. I HAVE ANSWERED all questions asked of me. Just because you don't like my answer or for that matter seen the answer does not mean I did not answer.

My argument with you on the Departmant of Education was to the point. I don't care if you liked the answer or not! My vote is none of your damn business.

I said...

"A strict Constitutionalist point of view is opposed to public schools funded at the federal level. A strict Statesman point of view is public schools are up to the county. A strict point of view of public schools as part of the public is it is up to the people themselves on what is and is not taught in a public school.

I am but one vote and am not an elected offical. My vote is none of your dang business, however; I have answered your question."

The above is a direct answer to your question. It was NOT disingenuous, you was lead to this point. It was NOT prattle drivel , it was directed at point, the rule of law. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and if a parent and their neighbors must pay for school then they should be able to tell the school what is and is not taught in that school, not some damn tax draining bureaucracy in D.C.! And if that county wants to teach I.D. and if most agree in that public school at the county level then the people in D.C. should get out of the way.

In---'Quantum Physics' the 'scientific method' is not used. All [and I'll use the words loosely] science is of thought experiments. These experiments are only carried out hypothetically.

You have Faith in the hypothetical...

You have the above for the very small. And use it to explain a chance happening of the universe. Thought experiments cannot be verified. You have a faith, it's just in man.

Why do you repeat the lies that Quantum Physics does not use the scientific method, that it is only thought experiments, and that it requires faith in the hypothetical? I have supplied concrete examples of physical experiments.

You have not answered this question, so saying that you have answered all the questions asked of you is either a misstatement or another lie.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

In---'Quantum Physics' the 'scientific method' is not used. All [and I'll use the words loosely] science is of thought experiments. These experiments are only carried out hypothetically.

You have Faith in the hypothetical...

You have the above for the very small. And use it to explain a chance happening of the universe. Thought experiments cannot be verified. You have a faith, it's just in man.

Why do you repeat the lies that Quantum Physics does not use the scientific method, that it is only thought experiments, and that it requires faith in the hypothetical? I have supplied concrete examples of physical experiments.

You have not answered this question, so saying that you have answered all the questions asked of you is either a misstatement or another lie.

If you know something happens but not the way or why it happens you really can't say that is concrete evidence. The double slit does not tell way or why; it does happen, yes, it does work, can't and wont argue that point.

You have Faith in the hypothetical...

You don't like my answer. I don't like your so called concrete evidence. And the concrete evidence given for the creation of the universe as a chance happening is science of thought experiments. These experiments are only carried out hypothetically.


I even answered your Squidbilly question about eyes. You just didn't like the answer. Our eyes were Designed for land use. Squidbillies eyes are Designed for saltwater. Long ago saltwater eyes left the saltwater and changed over time for the eyes needed for land.

In---'Quantum Physics' the 'scientific method' is not used. All [and I'll use the words loosely] science is of thought experiments. These experiments are only carried out hypothetically.

You have Faith in the hypothetical...

You have the above for the very small. And use it to explain a chance happening of the universe. Thought experiments cannot be verified. You have a faith, it's just in man.

Why do you repeat the lies that Quantum Physics does not use the scientific method, that it is only thought experiments, and that it requires faith in the hypothetical? I have supplied concrete examples of physical experiments.

You have not answered this question, so saying that you have answered all the questions asked of you is either a misstatement or another lie.

Bobby, I suspect he denies that the Large Hadron Collider exists, just as much as he denies a double slit experiment. Frankly I don't think he has a clue that what he calls thought experiments are homework assignments designed to show how absurd the causal principal is.

---

ID, no! I specified a yes or no answer, not a paragraph. Your view of reality does not correspond to mine. One of us is delusional.
Enjoy your life in the fantasy world.
"The above is a direct answer to your question. It was NOT disingenuous, you was lead to this point. It was NOT prattle drivel , it was directed at point, the rule of law. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and if a parent and their neighbors must pay for school then they should be able to tell the school what is and is not taught in that school, not some damn tax draining bureaucracy in D.C.! And if that county wants to teach I.D. and if most agree in that public school at the county level then the people in D.C. should get out of the way. '
OBW, That is a really pathetic move to change the subject.

---

If you know something happens but not the way it happens you really can't say that is concrete evidence.

You have Faith in the hypothetical...

You don't like my answer. I don't like your so called concrete evidence. And the concrete evidence given for the creation of the universe as a chance happening is science of thought experiments. These experiments are only carried out hypothetically.


I even answered your Squidbilly question about eyes. You just didn't like the answer. Our eyes were Designed for land use. Squidbillies eyes are Designed for saltwater. Long ago slatwater eyes left the saltwater and changed over time for the eyes needed for land.

Your "answer" about octopus eyes did not account for fish eyes having the same "design" as ours, so was incomplete. When this was pointed this out, you did not care to provide a complete answer. Your answer was and continues to be idiotic, if all aquatic life had octopus type eyes (i.e. no blind spot, and, btw, they don't, all sighted vertebrates have the same eye "design" as ours), why would land based animals evolve to the point of having one? You clearly do not understand the difference between the two types of camera eyes, as if you did, you would know that it is highly unlikely, even in evolutionary terms, for a species to change from octopus-like camera eyes to vertebrate-like camera eyes. Astonishingly this is described in detail in a book you have claimed to have read.

The Blind Watchmaker wrote:

For instance, octopus eyes are very like ours, but the wires leading from their photocells don't point forwards towards the light, as ours do. Octopus eyes are, in this respect, more 'sensibly' designed. They have arrived at a similar endpoint, from a very different starting point. And the fact is betrayed in details such as this.

The experiments that support the theories of quantum physics, a few of which are detailed in earlier posts, are carried out physically and not as thought experiments. The photoelectric effect shows that light is made up of discrete packets of energy (quanta). Packets of energy cannot account for the double slit experiment, as this demonstrates the wave like characteristics of light. Taken together these show that the energy we call light has both wave like and particle like characteristics, the quantum wave particle duality. Don't like it? Come up with something better, at the moment it is the current best approximation and is theory not hypothesis, the experimental data in support of the hypothesis has been collected and confirmed thousands, if not millions, of times.

If you know something happens but not the way it happens the scientific method suggests that you develop a model, you provide tests that will show whether the model is false, you ask others to contribute to that model and help devise further tests, you then have an hypothesis. You perform the tests and collect the evidence. If the model is not falsified, the hypothesis becomes theory until a better model is established. This is the path that was followed by Newton, by Einstein, by Feynman, by Plank, by Maxwell, by Heisenberg, by Darwin, by Dawkins, &c., &c., &c..

If after this you still say that quantum physics is hypothesis, we will know that, not only do you not understand quantum physics, you do not understand the scientific method.

Finally, no faith is required to believe that quantum physics is part of the current best approximation of reality that the natural sciences provide us. Your protests to the contrary are down to your not understanding how science works, and of the English language.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The above is a direct answer to your question. It was NOT disingenuous, you was lead to this point. It was NOT prattle drivel , it was directed at point, the rule of law. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and if a parent and their neighbors must pay for school then they should be able to tell the school what is and is not taught in that school, not some damn tax draining bureaucracy in D.C.! And if that county wants to teach I.D. and if most agree in that public school at the county level then the people in D.C. should get out of the way.

No establishment of religion. ID establishes religious teaching. If it is taught in a publicly funded school by will of the public, the public are establishing a religion. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I have sworn an oath before a federal judge that "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The statement above makes you just such an enemy.

I will be relentless in my efforts to be true to my word.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Two words... "school vouchers"

In some situations that allows schools to propagate belief over facts, faith over knowledge and may well undermine needed technical competence. Certainly this is not always the case -- there are decent schools supported via vouchers -- but, perhaps even more than the disparity in the public school systems there are some very bad voucher schools.

Two words... "school vouchers"

Fair enough. But this is a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I think a voucher system with competition will be a better result than we have today. Still schools would have to adhere to some set of standards and norms but could take a fair percentage of their classes to teach whatever they want that is important to the parents paying for education and their particular leanings.

I was raised in the CA public school systems in LA and Long Beach, and that is why I am a trained MMA fighter today..., ;-) egads... it took me years to brainwash myself from some of the stuff I learned... when I wasn’t watching my back….

A voucher supported ID school would strike me as less than 'the good' - ID has presented ample evidence of the lack of critical thinking such a viewpoint presents.

Also, I don't want to see a voucher program operate as a 'separate but "equal"' cover. Voucher schools can be quite good, but they can also be VERY bad. I've seen that here in Arizona.

In AZ there is an interesting end run regarding church/state separation in schools. Couples can direct up to $1000 to established school tuition programs for private and religious schools which is a tax *credit* on the state tax return. Similarly, couples can direct up to $400 to established social service agencies and get a tax credit. This reduces the state budget by quite a bit but redirects funds (probably far more efficiently) than the state budget would.

Fair enough. But this is a case where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I think a voucher system with competition will be a better result than we have today. Still schools would have to adhere to some set of standards and norms but could take a fair percentage of their classes to teach whatever they want that is important to the parents paying for education and their particular leanings.

Barry, I'm not sure if you are referring to ID the person, or ID the theory? LOL

Both statements pretty much come out the same in my mind however. ;-)

---

#resist

Doesn't the federal government have a responsibility to ensure that all schools teach the truth?

What would be the response if the "flat earth society" were to set up a school?

Now, I'm really LMAO.
classic stuff. On that note I'm off to sleep, and dream of the "flat earth society"...
*giggles

---

#resist

In response to your either/or query -- yes.

Barry, I'm not sure if you are referring to ID the person, or ID the theory? LOL

Both statements pretty much come out the same in my mind however. ;-)

Not only does the Federal (or state or local) government NOT have a responsibility to teach the truth, but also, even if they did, they would choose (as ID frequently does) to define the truth in a particular, peculiar manner.

Doesn't the federal government have a responsibility to ensure that all schools teach the truth?

What would be the response if the "flat earth society" were to set up a school?