Almalieque wrote:
Actually I didn't because that's a stupid, obvious and irrelevant statement. I can equally say that your position on Evolution is due to your belief in Evolution. Really? The point I was making was that I was not favoring any religion over another.
I don't "believe" in Evolution. I accept the fact that is evolution. Even if I were still a practising Catholic I would still accept evolution, as most theologians and Bishops (and higher) do. It is too well documented for it not to be true, I'm sorry your pastor makes you believe otherwise, but don't pretend your advocacy of ID is anywhere near Scientific. There have been no peer reviewed studies or papers that have come to the conclusion that ID is true.
Science looks for the truth, it constantly tries to prove itself false. This is what "Falsification" means. Guess what? In 150 years and counting, evolution has not been shown to be false. Certain aspects of it have been tweaked in order to conform to new information, but nothing has been found to dismiss it out of hand. Intelligent design is impossible to falsify, thus is not true to the scientific method. Therefore it can not be called science.
Almalieque wrote:
Hmmm. given the fact that Comp Sci is a hard science, along with math, I would answer "yes".
First of all Mathematics is a tool, not a science. Incidentally Mathematics is the only thing that can actually "prove" anything. This is why we use the word "Theory" to describe a body of knowledge which supports something taken to be fact. Which you should already know.
Second, whilst computer science is technically described as "hard", it has very little interchange with the natural of physical sciences. This is what I was getting at before.
Almalieque wrote:
True, but you're overlooking the fact that certain religions in ID support that a higher being created animals and not that they Evolved from a singularity. So it still has relevance in Biology when teaching Evolution.
You're using the word "evolved" wrong again. Evolution describes the diversity of life. It does not explain the origins of life. It does not explain how the solar system formed. It does not explain how the Universe started. Do you understand that?
Almalieque wrote:
Mentioning a topic vs teaching a subject is not "equal weight".
I said in a previous post, would it be okay with you if we mentioned it, and also taught why it is dismissed by the majority of scientists. You said
Almalieque wrote:
Of course I do, because now you're being biased. The whole purpose of having them there in the first place is to create an "equal" sense of an environment where the school is not promoting one thing over the other. It's really not that hard to grasp.
Yep. Looks like you want ID to be given equal weight.
Almalieque wrote:
I forgot you weren't U.S. Your spelling of "realize" tells me that.. >.> If you're anywhere from Europe, I'm willing to bet that includes your country as well.
The nation's opinion is relevant in that the school is teaching science because it's science and not what they necessarily believe in. You're making a complaint because something that you don't believe is being mentioned next to your belief. If the U.S. behaved the same way, then evolution wouldn't even be taught.
I think those scientist dismiss ID, because they don't believe in ID, the same reason believers dismiss Evolution. What's your point? I know you want to believe that every scientist dismisses religion, but that isn't true.
So what if it is not what they believe in? They can not believe it all they like, it does not stop it from being true! People used to believe the Earth was the centre of the Universe! They even locked up Galileo for the last years of his life because he challenged that dogma. Guess what, he was right, just like Darwin was right. Public opinion should have
zero impact on what is taught as truth.
Again, evolution is not a belief. Many Christian scholars and high ranking members of both the Church of Rome and the Church of England accept evolution to be true and find it does not conflict with their belief in a higher power.
Also, the US did behave the same way. Heard of the Scopes trial? How about in Dover, PN when the board of education there tried to get ID taught in schools? Seems like the judge there managed to realise that ID was just creationism re-branded.
The majority of scientists dismiss ID because we know what it is, creationism. Which isn't science. So isn't accepted by scientists. Am I getting through to you?
Almalieque wrote:
Nope. Not at all, nor does it change anything. Animals can be blind as well. Does that change your opinion on blindness?
What?
Almalieque wrote:
Ironically, you're the one acting like an ignorant f**ktard as I never said anything negative towards homosexuality. Just because I don't support it, doesn't justify anyone to scrutinize me. You just have your own personal bias and simply attacking others that don't agree with you. Do you have the same emotion towards "I don't support whores or ***** mongering?" Do you go off calling people f**ktards because they don't support people being ho's and whores?
Nice use of the old "I know you are but what am I?" tactic there. My personal bias is against bigotry. Your beliefs about homosexuals are bigoted. You don't treat them the same way as you do straight people.
Not that it matters, but you're black right? Say a large group of white people, like Mormons, started preaching that dark skin is a curse from god. Would you accept this because it was their religious belief? Or would you fight against it because it is bigoted?
Also, what does my opinion of prostitution have to do with my opinion of homosexuality? I'd be interested to know exactly what you have against prostitution though. Personally I don't have anything against
regulated prostitution like they have in some US states and in certain European countries. World's oldest profession, it's going to happen whatever my opinion of it is, it may as well be in a safe environment for the girls.
Almalieque wrote:
Also, what bias? If you saw a man crawling on his knees as opposed to walking on his legs, what would you think? What if you saw a woman eating with her feet instead of her hands, what would you think? What if a man told you he urinates sitting down, what would you think? What if a man says he sleeps with his eyes open standing up? Be honest, don't give me any PC BS.
How exactly was any of that relevant?
If I saw a man crawling, I'd wonder why he was crawling. I'd make the assumption that perhaps he couldn't walk for whatever reason. I'd think it was strange, I'd probably turn to a friend and say something along the lines of "WTF is he doing?".
The woman eating with her feet, I'd think it was impressive that she was that dexterous with her feet if I'm honest.
Sometimes I've occasioned to pee while sitting down. Mostly when tired. Why is this relevant again?
Some people do sleep with their eyes open, it's weird but doesn't harm me in any way. I've fallen asleep while standing up before. I was extremely drunk at the time, though. Why is this relevant again?
Edited, Apr 26th 2011 11:33am by Nilatai Edited, Apr 26th 2011 11:35am by Nilatai 
