Debate Suggestions?

[razeraze]

how about some of the ones that always get me in trouble.

1.) caging [surface temps, substrate, cage shape, temp gradients (naturalistic environment v.s. sterile environment)].

2.)Interpreting reptile behavior and training (conditioning) + enrichment.

[mrcota]

Tom,
#1 gets rather specific to the reptile or amphibian being kept and is not something that can be debated across the board.
#2 ALWAYS gets you in trouble

[bleeding_sarcasm]

I rather like the idea of a naturalistic vs. sterile debate. I know not all species can be kept one way or the other, but the general reasoning for keeping one over the other is usually the same, regardless of species. I would like to see it as a dabate.

[Hartsock]

Originally Posted by hartsock

I suggest/started a thread a week ago that dealt with the morality of using herps for monetary gain (not breeders more of sideshow people) and while waiting for approval I got this reply:
Closing until we get this put into the proper debate format
Is there something I am suppose to do to get it into proper debate format or is this more of a rejection letter?

bumping because I never got an answer!

[natas]

hartsock:

http://redtailboa.net/forums/debate/...w-threads.html

That link shows the proper format and explains it. If you have any questions about it PM me or any other mod/admin

[razeraze]

this post made me think of another one.

http://redtailboa.net/forums/feeding...-bad-idea.html

Feeding wild prey to reptiles. Not to mention could farmed food and sterilized branches be leading to a weaker immune system?

Perhaps we need to make this not only scientific debate but scientific questions. I would love to ask this question somewhere.

[razeraze]

What about should permit systems and back round checks be done on people wanting to keep reptiles?

[X-Factor]

Originally Posted by razeraze

What about should permit systems and back round checks be done on people wanting to keep reptiles?

Already in place man:

http://redtailboa.net/forums/debate/...te-v1-0-a.html

[razeraze]

Can we debate the Boeing 747 analogy by Fred Hoyle and dice analogy by Michael Behe ? The religion debate is very generic and a huge with many different angles, I think it would be cool to take one aspect and discuss just it.

Basically how natural selection and mutation or design affect the origins of life.

[X-Factor]

I have never heard what you are referring to Tom...You have me interested now.

[razeraze]

It is the idea that a tornado or hurricane could not sweep through a plane junkyard and assemble a 747 So therefore it has to be assembled by intelligent design. Since cells can be more complex than 747's they too would have to be designed and not evolved.

If we can start a thread on this I will go into further detail, it should make for a great debate.

[X-Factor]

Interesting. I like it.

[razeraze]

I sent it in for a request let's see if they approve it.

[mrcota]

Originally Posted by razeraze

It is the idea that a tornado or hurricane could not sweep through a plane junkyard and assemble a 747 So therefore it has to be assembled by intelligent design. Since cells can be more complex than 747's they too would have to be designed and not evolved.
If we can start a thread on this I will go into further detail, it should make for a great debate.

Tom,
.
Although I would find such a debate entertaining, the problem with such a debate is that it would never be able to conform to the idea of this sub-forum, which states that 'this forum is dedicated to Scientific debate', with the key word being 'Scientific', any arguments on the side of the false theological premise of 'intelligent design' would have to be substantiated with empirical evidence, for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, only illogical reasoning to try to justify outside ‘beliefs’ into the origins of life, which have had to be altered to remain viable. To substantiate this statement, you only need to look at the ones that entertain this false theological premise- they all share something in common- a monotheistic religion. You do not find these ‘beliefs’ in people with an interest in science that do not have a monotheistic religion, because by its nature a belief in something without empirical evidence is unscientific.
.
Michael

[Sam Sweet]

Folks who are interested in debating 'Intelligent Design', aka creationism, ought to inform themselves first. One of the best sources is from way back in 1982, when federal judge W.R. Overton ruled against an Arkansas law that required "balanced treatment" in schools, by presenting both creationist and scientific arguments about evolution. You can read Judge Overton's ruling at McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education . After a lengthy hearing process, Judge Overton concluded that creationism was a particular form of religion, not science, and it would violate separation of church and state to be taught as a "balancing" scientific viewpoint in public schools.

Notwithstanding, creationists subsequently sought to redefine their terminology so as to avoid overtly religious references, and came up with the notion of "Intelligent Design". When in 2004 a local school board in Pennsylvania sought to require "balance" (much like the earlier Arkansas case), federal judge J.E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design was merely creationism in thin disguise, and had no place in public education. There is a Wikipedia entry at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , but the full text of Judge Jones's ruling is a very readable and detailed analysis, which you can find at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al - Wikisource. It is quite long, but certainly the best review and analysis there is in print.

It is too easy to simply come out 'debating' without being well-informed on the issues, and there would likely be wide departures from the terms and intent of this debate forum. Once folks have understood the main issues as presented in these two court cases, a discussion or debate could be useful.

[razeraze]

Thank you , Sam and Michael. I agree with you both to the fullest and the reason I wanted to debate these 2 ideas was because I find them a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. The idea of a tornado assembling anything or dice randomly thrown shows a complete lack of understanding of how natural selection and evolution truly work. Not to mention nothing designed by us primates was ever perfect the first time. Planes and technology evolve just as we do. Look at how many steps it took to make a nail gun instead of a stone hammer. Not to mention the dice idea is the same thing. We don't just randomly build better technology by rolling the dice each time. We take the ideas we have made and improve on them. Like keeping a 6 every time one comes up instead of throwing it back into a new role.

Another reason I wanted to discuss this was I feel the public (not just these two theologians) has a terrible misunderstanding of how evolution works, even though we can see it every day in technology. This leads to the "God of the gaps" described by Dawkins. Because people don't understand how or why something works, then a supernatural power must be the only answer.

[mrcota]

Maybe that topic might fit better under the 'Urban Legend and Tall Tales' sub-forum

[Lucille]

What would y'all think of a debate about the efficacy of UV bulbs vs supplying vitamin D to achieve the same health benefit as UV?

[razeraze]

Originally Posted by Lucille

What would y'all think of a debate about the efficacy of UV bulbs vs supplying vitamin D to achieve the same health benefit as UV?

Sounds like a good one but it will vary with what reptile is questioned. A simple "is u.v. needed?" would not work for all reptiles. Maybe a specific question like is "u.v. needed with varanids?" but that can easily be discussed in the varanid section.

[Lucille]

Originally Posted by razeraze

easily be discussed

Off topic, but I am so glad to be here, and have the opportunity for a meaningful debate.