Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#202 Apr 26 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity.

No, they're banning all reference to sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality.


They're not banning discussion about someone who happens to be ***. They're banning discussion about "being ***". Isn't that exactly the distinction you made about the CA law? When the **** in the course of k-8 education is there a need to discuss "*** issues"?


Quote:
Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

This isn't just about ***-ed class.


I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law. I'll fully acknowledge that it may say that, and if that's the precise language then it's a crappy law (actually, it probably is anyway). But my point here isn't to defend the TN law as written, but to discuss the broader issue of how/whether sexual orientation ought to be directly targeted as part of instructional curriculum in public schools.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 2:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Apr 26 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity.

No, they're banning all reference to sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality.


They're not banning discussion about someone who happens to be ***. They're banning discussion about "being ***". Isn't that exactly the distinction you made about the CA law? When the **** in the course of k-8 education is there a need to discuss "*** issues"?
You just can't mention that he's ***. Or talk about the support he received from his partner. Which makes it a lot harder to give an accurate picture of someone.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#204 Apr 26 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're banning all additional topics not related to instructing kids about the biological repercussions of sexual activity.

No, they're banning all reference to sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality.


They're not banning discussion about someone who happens to be ***. They're banning discussion about "being ***". Isn't that exactly the distinction you made about the CA law? When the **** in the course of k-8 education is there a need to discuss "*** issues"?
You just can't mention that he's ***. Or talk about the support he received from his partner. Which makes it a lot harder to give an accurate picture of someone.


Even if we take the quote literally, that only means that they can't provide instruction about the persons sexual orientation. Mentioning someone is ***, and who their partner is doesn't qualify as instruction about sexual orientation.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#205 Apr 26 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Well, you have to be able to explain what being *** means or it's a bit confusing. And you should be able to answer questions as well, at least to a certain point. As I'd understand it, you'd at most be able to say that he was ***, but then just tell the kids to ask their parents about what that means, which is pretty silly.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#206 Apr 26 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Nilatai wrote:
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.


My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.

Nilatai wrote:
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.


It's called Mathematical Sciences. The word doesn't make it a science, but it all depends on what you're doing. If you're doing Abstract math, it is very much a science. If you're doing Application, not as much.

As for Comp Sci, you probably don't have a clear understanding of what Comp Sci is. This is why I don't tell people I majored in Comp Sci, because they expect me to be able to fix their computer.

Comp Sci deals with computations, methodologies, algorithms, etc. CS allows us to take a Biological concept (for example) and determine if a goal (given by a Biologist) is computationally possible under certain conditions and if so, the results and conditions. As a computer scientist (under the computation field, which I studied) you become very familiar with what ever subject that you are assisting.

I'm studying now to get in a Masters Neuro-Science program, under Comp Sci, because that's what I researched in undergrad and I enjoyed it. I was using the same upper division math concepts that I was learning from my Math major. If that's not "hard" science, then I don't know what is.

Nilatai wrote:
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?


My mistake. I have corrected myself in this post above.

Nilatai wrote:
Yep. Looks like you want ID to be given equal weight.


That's not equal weight...There's a difference between fair and equal. Not dismissing one over the other is "fair", but the amount of information given in the class is not equal by a long shot.

Ok, since you claim it's equal. Let's change it around. I mean if x = 2, then 2 = x. Let's only mention what evolution is and then have an entire chapter on ID. Hey, why not make it two sentences on evolution and say how evolution is right and ID is wrong followed by an entire chapter of ID from an ID perspective.

Equal right?

Nilatai wrote:
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.


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.

Nilatai wrote:
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?


1. I've argued that already.

2. uhhhhh... if they didn't allow it, that supports my argument.

3. Yes you are, that you're in denial. There are scientists who believe in ID and you just refuse to accept it. I'm sure it's the minority, but to pretend that there aren't scientist that believe in ID is silly.

Nilatai wrote:
What?


Exactly what I said. You made an argument that I was pretending that animals don't have homosexual tendencies. My argument is how does that matter? Animals also can be blind, does that change your opinion of people being blind?

Nilatai wrote:
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?


It's relevant because I want you to examine your thought processes. Why would you think that the man couldn't walk. Why do you think the woman was impressive or the people's sleeping habits were weird? The answer is we've examined our bodies to the point where we have created a "norm". We look at our bodies and say, "ok, we have two feet, so we should walk up right on our feet". So when you see a woman using her feet to eat with, that impresses you. You determine sleeping habits to be "weird" based off of what you and society have created to be the norm. It doesn't bother you that the person is sleeping with their eyes open, but you do find it weird.

Soooooooooo the relevance is, how come when people make the same logical connections with homosexuality, it becomes a big deal? How come a person can't just say "Man, that's weird" without being negatively labeled? I mean, the same thinking process that you used to conclude it was impressive for a woman to eat with her feet is the same thinking process that a person uses to determine it's weird for a guy to go **** on another guy.

That's why it's relevant. I'm not comparing the scenarios as the same, but the thinking processes.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#207 Apr 26 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
but then just tell the kids to ask their parents about what that means, which is pretty silly.
Which would end up with the same group that cried to get this bill in the first place to cry again saying they're teaching about gays in school again.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#208 Apr 26 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I can equally say that your position on Evolution is due to your belief in Evolution
Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Natural Selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution. You can say that you don't believe it or that you need faith or belief in evolution, but that doesn't change the objective facts - science isn't a democracy and doesn't give a sh*t if you do or don't believe in it, it just is. There is zero belief required to understand and accept either evolution OR the theory of natural selection. If you can come up with research to the contrary, by all means use that to refute natural selection within the scientific community.

I'd bet good money that you can't do that though, because you're not going to be able to do that research because natural selection most likely DOES accurately describe evolution.


Way to miss the point. Ok, replace "believe" with "support". Your position on Evolution is due to your support in Evolution. That's a stupid comment.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#209 Apr 26 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not defending this law.


I'm sure.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#210 Apr 26 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


Almalieque wrote:
It's called Mathematical Sciences. The word doesn't make it a science, but it all depends on what you're doing. If you're doing Abstract math, it is very much a science. If you're doing Application, not as much.

As for Comp Sci, you probably don't have a clear understanding of what Comp Sci is. This is why I don't tell people I majored in Comp Sci, because they expect me to be able to fix their computer.

Comp Sci deals with computations, methodologies, algorithms, etc. CS allows us to take a Biological concept (for example) and determine if a goal (given by a Biologist) is computationally possible under certain conditions and if so, the results and conditions. As a computer scientist (under the computation field, which I studied) you become very familiar with what ever subject that you are assisting.

I'm studying now to get in a Masters Neuro-Science program, under Comp Sci, because that's what I researched in undergrad and I enjoyed it. I was using the same upper division math concepts that I was learning from my Math major. If that's not "hard" science, then I don't know what is.
I've never heard it called Mathematical Sciences. Where I'm from Mathematics is split into it's constituents. Still, I view maths as a tool, not a science. Not in the traditional sense of science, at least. Although, Maths is the most beautiful way of using logic, in my opinion.


Almalieque wrote:
My mistake. I have corrected myself in this post above.
Okay, try not to make the mistake again, I suppose?

Almalieque wrote:
That's not equal weight...There's a difference between fair and equal. Not dismissing one over the other is "fair", but the amount of information given in the class is not equal by a long shot.

Ok, since you claim it's equal. Let's change it around. I mean if x = 2, then 2 = x. Let's only mention what evolution is and then have an entire chapter on ID. Hey, why not make it two sentences on evolution and say how evolution is right and ID is wrong followed by an entire chapter of ID from an ID perspective.

Equal right?
Except there is no evidence for ID, why should it be presented at all? I never claimed they were equal. What I quoted from you was you saying you thought they ought to have an equal footing. What I'm saying is, that's an unreasonable position to take because they are not equal. One has a theory supporting it (see bsphil's post outlining what a theory is). The other has the bible supporting it. They are not equal.

Almalieque wrote:
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.
For a long while, teaching evolution was a crime in the US. Do your history research, please.

Almalieque wrote:
1. I've argued that already.

2. uhhhhh... if they didn't allow it, that supports my argument.

3. Yes you are, that you're in denial. There are scientists who believe in ID and you just refuse to accept it. I'm sure it's the minority, but to pretend that there aren't scientist that believe in ID is silly.
1. No you didn't.

2. They didn't allow it...

3. There are scientists who accept ID. The majority of these work for the Discovery institute. My point is that top scientists and real biologists do not, because there is no evidence for it. None at all. A gap in the understanding of evolutionary biology is not proof for creationism "Intelligent Design".

Almalieque wrote:
Exactly what I said. You made an argument that I was pretending that animals don't have homosexual tendencies. My argument is how does that matter? Animals also can be blind, does that change your opinion of people being blind?
Well, that shows it is present in nature. So is a natural urge, no? It also shows it's not a choice, as other animals do not have the cognitive abilities we do. (That's an assumption, but I think a safe one). And yes, we are animals, don't try and play that card, please.



Almalieque wrote:
It's relevant because I want you to examine your thought processes. Why would you think that the man couldn't walk. Why do you think the woman was impressive or the people's sleeping habits were weird? The answer is we've examined our bodies to the point where we have created a "norm". We look at our bodies and say, "ok, we have two feet, so we should walk up right on our feet". So when you see a woman using her feet to eat with, that impresses you. You determine sleeping habits to be "weird" based off of what you and society have created to be the norm. It doesn't bother you that the person is sleeping with their eyes open, but you do find it weird.

Soooooooooo the relevance is, how come when people make the same logical connections with homosexuality, it becomes a big deal? How come a person can't just say "Man, that's weird" without being negatively labeled? I mean, the same thinking process that you used to conclude it was impressive for a woman to eat with her feet is the same thinking process that a person uses to determine it's weird for a guy to go **** on another guy.

That's why it's relevant. I'm not comparing the scenarios as the same, but the thinking processes.
Well, the thing about feet is BS. We walk on two feet due to instinctual learning of how to walk on two feet.

Yes, if I saw someone with enough dexterity to eat with their feet, it would be impressive. They could probably even join the circus and turn it into a career!

Sleep habits have nothing to do with what society thinks. Do you think babies give a crap about what society thinks is proper sleep etiquette? Or do they get it "right" all by themselves?

My point is it doesn't matter what I think is "weird", it has very little impact on me until people start telling me I shouldn't crawl because it's unnatural. Or that I can't eat with my feet, if I have the ability to. ****, if I want to sleep standing up I'll bloody well sleep standing up, I couldn't care less if you think it's weird. It doesn't hurt you in the slightest so why do you care?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#211 Apr 26 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


To be fair though, a **** of a lot of people think that the science of evolution disproves creationism, so it's not just one side doing this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Apr 26 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


To be fair though, a **** of a lot of people think that the science of evolution disproves creationism, so it's not just one side doing this.
Um, it does? Assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, which all the evidence suggests, the biblical account of creation did not take place. We also know, from cosmology that the Earth formed after the Sun, not before it. We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I took "Creationism" to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 (well, 2:1 really because people bang on about Adam and Eve, and they're from chapter 2).

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 6:48pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#213 Apr 26 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Nilatai wrote:
We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.
The Bible doesn't say anything about twenty-four hour periods, just seven days. As in it doesn't really say if its a day measured by man or a day measured by God. Just, you know. Throwing that out there. Neither evolution or intelligent design has ever made much sense by themselves to me. I'm fine with believing that some being(s) spent millions of years fine tuning everything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#214 Apr 26 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Well, you have to be able to explain what being *** means or it's a bit confusing. And you should be able to answer questions as well, at least to a certain point.


Only if we go out of our way to highlight people as being homosexual, like say if we passed a law like in California mandating that curriculum include positive role models for specific targeted groups. Can you recall the sexual orientation of historical figures ever being mentioned directly in your grade school? Is this how our history is currently taught:

History as overly defensive *** people view it[/quote wrote:

John Adams, who was a good and moral heterosexual, and who regularly had straight *** with his wife Abigail, producing many good heterosexual children, including a future president, also had something to do with founding our nation. But enough about that. Did we mention that he was heterosexual and provided an important contribution as a result? And he often quarreled with Thomas Jefferson, who was also a heterosexual, but he may have had an affair with his slave, who was at least female which makes it only partially bad so for that reason Jefferson wasn't as moral as Adams. And lets not talk about Ben Franklin, who was heterosexual, but also liked the French, so we can't really be sure...


Is this how history books currently read? Because I don't recall that. Maybe things have changed since grade school, but I don't recall any specific mention of various figures sexual orientation at all. I'm sure some historical figures were ***, yet somehow we managed to discuss their accomplishments without having to delve into the details of their *** lives, just as we managed to discuss the accomplishments of heterosexuals without delving into details about their *** lives either. Shocking, isn't it?

Quote:
As I'd understand it, you'd at most be able to say that he was ***, but then just tell the kids to ask their parents about what that means, which is pretty silly.


Or you could simply not mention his sexual orientation at all. Why would it come up unless you made a point of doing so? I mean, it's entirely possible that Edison and Watson were *** lovers, and his famous statement was really in reference to the need for a quickie, but it's not really relevant either way, is it? This entire issue only matters if there's an agenda to specifically single out people's sexual orientation. How about we just not do that in k-8th grade curriculum and avoid the issue entirely?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#215 Apr 26 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.
The Bible doesn't say anything about twenty-four hour periods, just seven days. As in it doesn't really say if its a day measured by man or a day measured by God. Just, you know. Throwing that out there. Neither evolution or intelligent design has ever made much sense by themselves to me. I'm fine with believing that some being(s) spent millions of years fine tuning everything.
I don't have anything against the Deist perspective. Not really. I do have something against things being passed off as Science when they're anything but.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#216 Apr 26 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


To be fair though, a **** of a lot of people think that the science of evolution disproves creationism, so it's not just one side doing this.
Um, it does? Assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, which all the evidence suggests, the biblical account of creation did not take place. We also know, from cosmology that the Earth formed after the Sun, not before it. We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I took "Creationism" to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 (well, 2:1 really because people bang on about Adam and Eve, and they're from chapter 2).

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 6:48pm by Nilatai


On the sixth day God created dinosaurs and humans, so it clearly shows that the Bible is not a literal text. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution as fact.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#217 Apr 26 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Except there is no evidence for ID, why should it be presented at all? I never claimed they were equal. What I quoted from you was you saying you thought they ought to have an equal footing. What I'm saying is, that's an unreasonable position to take because they are not equal. One has a theory supporting it (see bsphil's post outlining what a theory is). The other has the bible supporting it. They are not equal.


My point was that you're accusing me of wanting ID and Evolution to have "equal footing" and I'm countering that I'm not. Defining ID and creationism in a paragraph followed by an entire chapter of Evolution is "NOT equal footing". You're arguing against the presence of ID in a class under the argument that I want "equal footing". Just argue what you mean "ID shouldn't be in the class". Don't try to make me seem like I want "equal footing".

Nilatai wrote:
For a long while, teaching evolution was a crime in the US. Do your history research, please.


"Was", which is the point. The population as a majority STILL believes in religion. You have yet countered anything, only supported my argument.

Nilatai wrote:
1. No you didn't.

2. They didn't allow it...

3. There are scientists who accept ID. The majority of these work for the Discovery institute. My point is that top scientists and real biologists do not, because there is no evidence for it. None at all. A gap in the understanding of evolutionary biology is not proof for creationism "Intelligent Design".


1. I did several times.

2. Which supports my point.

3. So what makes you "top" and "real"? Can a top scientist and real biologist believe in ID?

Nilatai wrote:
Well, that shows it is present in nature. So is a natural urge, no? It also shows it's not a choice, as other animals do not have the cognitive abilities we do. (That's an assumption, but I think a safe one). And yes, we are animals, don't try and play that card, please.


Does blindness in animals change your opinion on blindness in humans?

You do realize that just because it occurs in nature in animals, it doesn't make it natural for humans, even if you consider people animals? I would hope by now people would realize how silly of an argument that is. Well birds fly, so it's only natural for humans to fly!! Cows are born walking, so it's only natural for humans to be born walking. It's natural for bears to hibernate, so it's only natural for humans to do so! I hope you get the point. Even if you consider yourself an animal, you aren't a dog, cat, bird or a fish.

Nilatai wrote:
Well, the thing about feet is BS. We walk on two feet due to instinctual learning of how to walk on two feet.

Yes, if I saw someone with enough dexterity to eat with their feet, it would be impressive. They could probably even join the circus and turn it into a career!

Sleep habits have nothing to do with what society thinks. Do you think babies give a crap about what society thinks is proper sleep etiquette? Or do they get it "right" all by themselves?

My point is it doesn't matter what I think is "weird", it has very little impact on me until people start telling me I shouldn't crawl because it's unnatural. Or that I can't eat with my feet, if I have the ability to. ****, if I want to sleep standing up I'll bloody well sleep standing up, I couldn't care less if you think it's weird. It doesn't hurt you in the slightest so why do you care?


1. The feet thing isn't BS, because we start off crawling not walking. In any case, what's the difference? I have instinctual learning to want to mate with women, how does that change anything?

2. It has everything to do with society because we accept the fact that babies are not adults. That's why it's ok for babies to urinate on themselves, not talk coherently, etc. A baby is an undeveloped adult. We're not talking about babies.

3. Exactly and where did I say someone shouldn't be Homosexual because it's unnatural? My point is that having my own opinion on that does not justify you to call me names. I haven't provided any negativity to homosexuals only a difference of opinion.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#218 Apr 26 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
On the sixth day God created dinosaurs and humans, so it clearly shows that the Bible is not a literal text. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution as fact.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible now? My KJV omits them completely.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#219 Apr 26 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
On the sixth day God created dinosaurs and humans, so it clearly shows that the Bible is not a literal text. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution as fact.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible now? My KJV omits them completely.


Not sure if they are mentioned or not, but the Bible says that God created animals and humans on the sixth day and dinosaurs were animals. My point was that the sixth "day" was millions of years long.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#220 Apr 26 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
On the sixth day God created dinosaurs and humans, so it clearly shows that the Bible is not a literal text. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in God, but I accept the theory of evolution as fact.
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible now? My KJV omits them completely.
Well, not literally. 1:24 I think it was talks about when all creatures that walk the Earth were created, which would be interpreted as everything from cows to dinosaurs. Essentially the passage that spawned The Flintstones.

Ugh, making me remember Catholic School. I hate you alls.

Epic grammar fail.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 7:09pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#221 Apr 26 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My fault for not clarifying myself. I've been arguing that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution has occurred as well, I don't accept that we all evolved from a singularity. That is my argument on "believing" evolution.
No one is saying we evolved from a singularity. You're no longer talking about Evolution. Cosmology is not evolution. Stop pretending they are the same thing.


To be fair though, a **** of a lot of people think that the science of evolution disproves creationism, so it's not just one side doing this.
Um, it does? Assuming we evolved from a common ancestor with other great apes, which all the evidence suggests, the biblical account of creation did not take place. We also know, from cosmology that the Earth formed after the Sun, not before it. We also know that the Earth was not formed in 6 literal 24 hour days.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I took "Creationism" to mean a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 (well, 2:1 really because people bang on about Adam and Eve, and they're from chapter 2).


Creationism is not exclusively about a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is more broadly about the idea that the whole universe was created in some way by some kind of divine force or being. Weren't you guys originally arguing about Intelligent Design? That has *nothing* to do with Genesis, yet it's still assumed to be disproved because the biblical account doesn't exactly match our biological science.


And just to play devils advocate, once you get past the literal issue of days and whatnot, the order of things listed in the Genesis story is reasonably accurate when you consider how old it is and compare it to most creation myths. Light came first (the sun and/or big bang). Then the sky separated from the surface (formation of an atmosphere) and the land from the sea. Then plants. Then fish and birds. Then land animals. Then people. If you get past the assumption that the "heaven and earth" in the first sentence must be a planet and not something more like "energy and matter", the story is remarkably accurate to how life would evolve. But that would require giving a little ground to interpretation. I'm just suggesting that if it's wrong for religious people to take Genesis literally, isn't it equally wrong for non-religious people to do so?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#222 Apr 26 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My point was that you're accusing me of wanting ID and Evolution to have "equal footing" and I'm countering that I'm not. Defining ID and creationism in a paragraph followed by an entire chapter of Evolution is "NOT equal footing". You're arguing against the presence of ID in a class under the argument that I want "equal footing". Just argue what you mean "ID shouldn't be in the class". Don't try to make me seem like I want "equal footing".
That's what you said!!!

Almalieque wrote:
"Was", which is the point. The population as a majority STILL believes in religion. You have yet countered anything, only supported my argument.
Wat? I said that public opinion should have no bearing on what is taught in schools? Apparently your constitution agrees with me, this is why despite the majority of the US population being religious (this is irrelevant by the way, why do you keep bringing it up?) the teaching of ID was deemed to be unconstitutional in the Kismiller Vs Dover trial.


Almalieque wrote:
3. So what makes you "top" and "real"? Can a top scientist and real biologist believe in ID?
I already explained what a "top" scientist is. Someone who belongs to an organisation such as the Royal Society. A "real" scientist is someone who does research, or teaches at University level.


Almalieque wrote:
Does blindness in animals change your opinion on blindness in humans?
Why do you keep asking this? Are you saying that just because blindness occurs in animals, that doesn't mean it's natural in humans?

Almalieque wrote:
You do realize that just because it occurs in nature in animals, it doesn't make it natural for humans, even if you consider people animals?
Yes it does, why would humans be any different?

Almalieque wrote:
I would hope by now people would realize how silly of an argument that is. Well birds fly, so it's only natural for humans to fly!! Cows are born walking, so it's only natural for humans to be born walking. It's natural for bears to hibernate, so it's only natural for humans to do so!
Wat? Why are we talking about other instincts, when did we get off of talking about sexuality?

Almalieque wrote:
I hope you get the point. Even if you consider yourself an animal, you aren't a dog, cat, bird or a fish.
No, I'm a primate. A great ape to be precise. So are you, actually. Baboons are known to be *** too, by the way.

Nilatai wrote:
Well, the thing about feet is BS. We walk on two feet due to instinctual learning of how to walk on two feet.

Yes, if I saw someone with enough dexterity to eat with their feet, it would be impressive. They could probably even join the circus and turn it into a career!

Sleep habits have nothing to do with what society thinks. Do you think babies give a crap about what society thinks is proper sleep etiquette? Or do they get it "right" all by themselves?

My point is it doesn't matter what I think is "weird", it has very little impact on me until people start telling me I shouldn't crawl because it's unnatural. Or that I can't eat with my feet, if I have the ability to. ****, if I want to sleep standing up I'll bloody well sleep standing up, I couldn't care less if you think it's weird. It doesn't hurt you in the slightest so why do you care?


Almalieque wrote:
1. The feet thing isn't BS, because we start off crawling not walking. In any case, what's the difference? I have instinctual learning to want to mate with women, how does that change anything?
Do you know why we start off crawling? Because we don't have the necessary bone or muscle density as an infant to walk. Do you know why this is? Because during gestation more time is spent developing our brains. Brains that give us our niche in the animal kingdom. Brains that we evolved that give us the ability to be sentient. Brains that people like you can use to question whether evolutions even took place at all.

Almalieque wrote:
2. It has everything to do with society because we accept the fact that babies are not adults. That's why it's ok for babies to urinate on themselves, not talk coherently, etc. A baby is an undeveloped adult. We're not talking about babies.
No it doesn't. Do you think some people are weird because they sleep during the day and go to work at night? We're diurnal mammals. It's not natural for people to be awake at night time! Scorn the weird night people!

Almalieque wrote:
3. Exactly and where did I say someone shouldn't be Homosexual because it's unnatural? My point is that having my own opinion on that does not justify you to call me names. I haven't provided any negativity to homosexuals only a difference of opinion.
What the **** is your point about homosexuality any way? You're opposed to it, but you claim it has nothing to do with your religion. Now you say you don't think it's unnatural. So, what do you have against homosexuals?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#223 Apr 26 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Nil, it's really not worth it to try and argue with Alma.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#224 Apr 26 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nil, it's really not worth it to try and argue with Alma.
Nil has to hit rock bottom before he can be saved.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#225 Apr 26 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Creationism is not exclusively about a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is more broadly about the idea that the whole universe was created in some way by some kind of divine force or being. Weren't you guys originally arguing about Intelligent Design? That has *nothing* to do with Genesis, yet it's still assumed to be disproved because the biblical account doesn't exactly match our biological science.
Intelligent Design is a re-branding of Creationism, though. Ask the majority of the proponents of ID who they think the designer is. Who do you think? Shiva? Brahman? Thor? Zeus? Wotan? No, it's Yahweh, the god of the Bible.

It's also not the Deist interpretation, you know the unmoved mover. The uncaused first cause. The being who set up the Universe and then left it to run it's course. The "Intelligent designer" is a higher being which takes decisive action in this Universe. According to ID, it steered the evolutionary process with us in mind. That just isn't true, evolution via natural selection does not have a goal, it does not have foresight. This is well documented.


gbaji wrote:
And just to play devils advocate, once you get past the literal issue of days and whatnot, the order of things listed in the Genesis story is reasonably accurate when you consider how old it is and compare it to most creation myths. Light came first (the sun and/or big bang). Then the sky separated from the surface (formation of an atmosphere) and the land from the sea. Then plants. Then fish and birds. Then land animals. Then people. If you get past the assumption that the "heaven and earth" in the first sentence must be a planet and not something more like "energy and matter", the story is remarkably accurate to how life would evolve. But that would require giving a little ground to interpretation. I'm just suggesting that if it's wrong for religious people to take Genesis literally, isn't it equally wrong for non-religious people to do so?
I didn't say it was wrong for religious people to take their texts literally. I said their texts were literally wrong.

Please don't play apologetics here...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#226 Apr 26 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nil, it's really not worth it to try and argue with Alma.
Nil has to hit rock bottom before he can be saved.
Sssh, post count.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#227 Apr 26 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I can see there are a few of us who are aware of our nasty addiction to smacking our heads against walls. I think we need to support each other in order to overcome this pathetic addiction. That being said, I'm here for you, bsphil.


Remember your sig!
That's what I thought, but I had to let one section get out. Gotta try harder next time.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#228 Apr 26 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Intelligent Design is a re-branding of Creationism, though.


But creationism itself doesn't assume any specific creator. When you say "creationism" you really mean "the Judeo-Christian account of creation from Genesis". But that's like saying that all animals are dogs, and since dogs can't fly no animal can fly. When you say that creationism is wrong because the literal story in Genesis is wrong, you are making exactly the same logical error.

Quote:
Ask the majority of the proponents of ID who they think the designer is. Who do you think? Shiva? Brahman? Thor? Zeus? Wotan? No, it's Yahweh, the god of the Bible.


Sure. Because that's their personal belief. That does not rule out creationism (or ID) as a valid explanation as to the origin of life the universe and everything.

Quote:
It's also not the Deist interpretation, you know the unmoved mover. The uncaused first cause. The being who set up the Universe and then left it to run it's course. The "Intelligent designer" is a higher being which takes decisive action in this Universe. According to ID, it steered the evolutionary process with us in mind.


And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?

Quote:
That just isn't true, evolution via natural selection does not have a goal, it does not have foresight. This is well documented.


That's an assumption though, isn't it? I mean, if we accept that there is an intelligent designer who uses evolutionary processes to make his design into what he wants, how would you know the difference? Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you can't prove that there *isn't* an intelligence deciding when specific mutations happen, or which natural events occur which lead life in a given direction.


There's a better argument against ID btw. I've made it myself in the past. It has to do with Occam's Razor, and falsifiability. It's not that we can prove that there isn't an intelligent designer, but that assuming one exists only increases the complexity of our model and does not clarify or solve any problems. That's the real best argument against ID. Trying to insist that science has disproved any act of a divine being causing the world to come out the way it did is a horribly wrong approach. Call this a free tip if you want.


Quote:
I didn't say it was wrong for religious people to take their texts literally. I said their texts were literally wrong.


You misunderstand me. I was trying to make the point that while I'm sure there are some out there somewhere, I've never actually met or communicated with a theist who insisted that the creation story in Genesis was exactly and literally true, but I've met tons of atheists who insist on exactly that sort of literal interpretation when arguing against it. That makes it an amusing form of straw man. The atheists are arguing against a position almost no theists actually take. And certainly, the bulk of folks arguing for creationism or ID today are not insisting that we teach the story out of the bible as literal fact either.

Quote:
Please don't play apologetics here...


I'm not. I'm just remarking with some amusement how the only people I've met who insist on taking the bible literally are atheists. Yet, they're the ones who claim to be arguing from a position of logic and reason. I just find it to be a huge waste of time all the way around.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Apr 26 2011 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Human ********** Very important aspect of reproduction, dangling on the outside of the male body surrounded by some of the most sensitive nerves. I don't know about you, but I don't find it intelligent at all to put the self destruct mechanism on the outside of the fortress. Not so much intelligent design so much as Last Minute Drunk College Science Project.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#230 Apr 26 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
But creationism itself doesn't assume any specific creator. When you say "creationism" you really mean "the Judeo-Christian account of creation from Genesis". But that's like saying that all animals are dogs, and since dogs can't fly no animal can fly. When you say that creationism is wrong because the literal story in Genesis is wrong, you are making exactly the same logical error.
The Jude-Christian account is the one being lobbied for in the US, no? What with it being a "Christian nation" and all?


gbaji wrote:
Sure. Because that's their personal belief. That does not rule out creationism (or ID) as a valid explanation as to the origin of life the universe and everything.
It rules them out as a scientific explanation. You can not test the supernatural via naturalistic means. This means that they do not belong in the Science class room. Do you disagree on this point?


gbaji wrote:
And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?
Aren't you?


gbaji wrote:
That's an assumption though, isn't it? I mean, if we accept that there is an intelligent designer who uses evolutionary processes to make his design into what he wants, how would you know the difference? Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you can't prove that there *isn't* an intelligence deciding when specific mutations happen, or which natural events occur which lead life in a given direction.
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


gbaji wrote:
There's a better argument against ID btw. I've made it myself in the past. It has to do with Occam's Razor, and falsifiability. It's not that we can prove that there isn't an intelligent designer, but that assuming one exists only increases the complexity of our model and does not clarify or solve any problems. That's the real best argument against ID. Trying to insist that science has disproved any act of a divine being causing the world to come out the way it did is a horribly wrong approach. Call this a free tip if you want.
I brought up falsifiability earlier, actually. Thanks for the tip. I doubt it would have made much difference to someone like Alma, however.



gbaji wrote:
You misunderstand me. I was trying to make the point that while I'm sure there are some out there somewhere, I've never actually met or communicated with a theist who insisted that the creation story in Genesis was exactly and literally true, but I've met tons of atheists who insist on exactly that sort of literal interpretation when arguing against it. That makes it an amusing form of straw man. The atheists are arguing against a position almost no theists actually take. And certainly, the bulk of folks arguing for creationism or ID today are not insisting that we teach the story out of the bible as literal fact either.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Perhaps you misunderstood me. You can't honestly believe that anyone trying to crowbar ID into Biology classes is not a Biblical literalism. I mean, look at the discovery institute, this is one of the biggest proponents of ID in the US.



gbaji wrote:
I'm not. I'm just remarking with some amusement how the only people I've met who insist on taking the bible literally are atheists. Yet, they're the ones who claim to be arguing from a position of logic and reason. I just find it to be a huge waste of time all the way around.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 5:06pm by gbaji
That's because most Atheists are against the Bible in it's literal sense. I am yet to meet one who thinks that the bible should not be used as a literary tool. I myself own a King James Version. It contains some beautiful language and I can appreciate it for that reason. This doesn't mean I should refrain from pointing out that the stories contained in it are bullshit.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#231 Apr 26 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Human ********** Very important aspect of reproduction, dangling on the outside of the male body surrounded by some of the most sensitive nerves. I don't know about you, but I don't find it intelligent at all to put the self destruct mechanism on the outside of the fortress. Not so much intelligent design so much as Last Minute Drunk College Science Project.


Lol. Some would argue that they're evidence of intelligent design, since you'd think natural selection would punish creatures with such a design and reward those who evolved with internal testes. An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.

I'm pretty sure that God was originally a software developer for Microsoft, in fact. Or maybe not, since that would suggest that he decided to put the ********* outside the body first and then figured he'd adjust the sperm to take advantage of the lower temperature thus caused rather than the other way around. Hmmmm....
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Apr 26 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
This isn't just about ***-ed class.
I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law.

That is the text from the law, dipshit. If you actually cared about something other than defending Republicans, you'd have looked for yourself by now and seen the same thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#233 Apr 26 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.
Maybe if he was a 6 year old.

A true intelligent designer would design sperm that could last at a higher temperature.

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 8:02pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#234 Apr 26 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Nilatai wrote:
The Jude-Christian account is the one being lobbied for in the US, no? What with it being a "Christian nation" and all?


Is it? I'm honestly curious because this would be the first I've heard of it. Every call for ID taught in public school simply asks that when evolution is taught that some mention of an alternative in which some form of intelligence may have guided development be included. I suppose it's possible that some would like to see a Genesis account included, but I've yet to even see proposed ID curriculum, so we'd just be speculating, wouldn't we?

Quote:
It rules them out as a scientific explanation. You can not test the supernatural via naturalistic means. This means that they do not belong in the Science class room. Do you disagree on this point?


Not at all. But that's not what you argued. You argued that it was wrong because the biblical account in Genesis is wrong if taken literally. You then argued that most of the people proposing ID believe in said biblical account, and assumed that this meant that any inclusion of ID in public school would therefore include their personal beliefs and only their's. But that's an assumption, isn't it? Can you accept the possibility that many religious people don't care if students learn about any specific creation story, but are merely exposed to the idea that creation is a potential alternative explanation to the question of "how did we get here?".

In the context of a world where evolutionary science is often pushed with a markedly anti-religious agenda attached to it (ie: you either reject religion or you reject science), it's not really surprising or unusual for religious people to want to prevent the public school system from teaching the exact science used to make that argument as sole and undisputed fact. Just look at this thread and your own assumptions about creationism and evolution being incompatible. Where did that assumption come from? Given that assumption you make yourself, why be surprised if religious people want to make sure kids are taught that there is an alternative explanation?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
And that's a problem, why? Isn't this you injecting your own personal beliefs into the issue?
Aren't you?


Not even remotely. Trust me on this.


Quote:
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


But you attempted to make that argument anyway. Hence, my point. You attempted to argue that since evolution is fact, and evolution and creationism are incompatible, therefore creationism can't be true. There are massive gaping holes in that logic *and* it's an unprovable direction to go. But you did it anyway, didn't you?


Quote:
I brought up falsifiability earlier, actually. Thanks for the tip. I doubt it would have made much difference to someone like Alma, however.


Possibly not. But that's also not sufficient by itself. I'd suggest you look up Occam's Razor to understand the principle. Simply arguing that something can't be true because it can't be proven to be false doesn't work. You have to also show why there's no value to assuming that it is true. ID simply doesn't add anything except complexity.

Quote:
You can't honestly believe that anyone trying to crowbar ID into Biology classes is not a Biblical literalism.


I assume you meant "literalist". Of course I can.

I think you're getting ahead of the argument. While I'm sure the ultimate goal of ID proponents is to get more people to believe in their version of god at some point in the future, the actual instruction is based on simply questioning assumptions about evolution. I'll repeat that I've yet to read any proposals demanding specific biblical accounts be taught, but merely that their arguments that there must be an intelligent designer to the world be taught. Again, that's clearly aimed at opening the door for people to later enter into a belief in god, but the instruction in the school doesn't make any pronouncements about the specific form the intelligence would take.


Quote:
I mean, look at the discovery institute, this is one of the biggest proponents of ID in the US.


I just did. They propose teaching a curriculum in which flaws in evolution are taught, and evidence of intelligent design are taught. I've seen nothing to indicate that they intend for any specifics regarding the nature of said intelligence to be taught as part of public school curriculum. But you go ahead and knock yourself out trying to find it. So far, what I see is assumption by you that it's all some plot to sneak bible instruction into public school. Never mind that in the US, that would not be allowed, so the second they "snuck" it in there, the jig would be up, so to speak.


Sure seems like a lot of effort to go through just to have the first class which includes Genesis in their classroom instruction to result in a court case which would eliminate all their work. I'm going to go with the assumption that they don't feel they need to do that and are satisfied with simply opening up students minds to the possibility of an intelligence behind creation.



Quote:
That's because most Atheists are against the Bible in it's literal sense. I am yet to meet one who thinks that the bible should not be used as a literary tool. I myself own a King James Version. It contains some beautiful language and I can appreciate it for that reason. This doesn't mean I should refrain from pointing out that the stories contained in it are bullshit.


But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within. And it certainly seems like most atheists aren't just against a literal interpretation of the bible, but are opposed to religious belief itself. How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about anyone who believes in a "man in the sky"? Lots of times. I've never heard an atheist say that religious belief is just fine as long as the religious people don't take their bible literally. What they do is point out inconsistencies and problems with said literal interpretations and then use those to prove that the entire belief system must be wrong.


Which makes them as bad as those they claim to oppose. There's irony there IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#235 Apr 26 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
An intelligent designer might realize that the design he's working on involves sperm which require a slightly lower temperature than normal body temp and would solve the problem by moving the container just outside the body.
Maybe if he was a 6 year old.

A true intelligent designer would design sperm that could last at a higher temperature.


That's funny because I actually wrote a bit about how natural selection would not have evolved a sperm that required a lower body temperature in the first place, but then cut it out and replaced it with a joke instead. Kinda goes both ways, doesn't it? I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage? I could see a designer doing that because he might think ahead and come up with an advantage for lower temperature sperm, but evolution?


You do realize I'm just playing here, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Apr 26 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#237 Apr 26 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nil, it's really not worth it to try and argue with Alma.
Nil has to hit rock bottom before he can be saved.
Sssh, post count.


You can do that without Alma. Really.
#238 Apr 26 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Yet again, since you missed it the first time I guess, the TN law wrote:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
This isn't just about ***-ed class.
I'll repeat a statement I made about the other law. I'd need to see the actual law, and not an unattributed quote in a news article about the law.

That is the text from the law, dipshit.


Is it? I haven't seen anyone link to a source with the actual text of the law. Did I miss that?

Quote:
If you actually cared about something other than defending Republicans, you'd have looked for yourself by now and seen the same thing.


Yes. I have looked it up, and that is the wording. So, as I stated several times, it's a badly worded bill. The point I was making is that this is not the first time I've read an article that misrepresented the language in a law or bill, so I preferred to look at the actual law itself. It's actually surprising how many articles mentioned the same quote, but not one of them had a link to the bill itself. You'd think in this modern age of things like hypertext links, that people who write online articles would learn how to use them.


Remove the "other than heterosexuality" from the end of the sentence, and it's perfectly fine IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Apr 26 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#240 Apr 26 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within.
Most atheists I know, myself included, don't have a problem with all with the religious folk who feel this way. If they're a majority, they're an awfully quiet one.

It's mainly the people who believe the bible literally, which is what the people who preach about the bible tend to say. But I'm only basing that on 18 years of experience. Even in the Lutheran church I grew up in, which I still consider fairly open and welcoming relative to the average Christian church, we learned in confirmation classes that every word in the bible was meant to be taken literally.

To reiterate the point made previously, don't bother with the apologetics.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#241 Apr 26 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.


Maybe God just wanted us to have an easy way to win a fight and also to have some funny home videos.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#242 Apr 26 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I mean, why would evolution cause a creature to evolve sperm which required a lower temperature just so it could place the ********* outside the body where it would be at an evolutionary disadvantage?

Because evolution has no desires or goals and a "disadvantage" only counts if it's actually keeping things from reproducing. Given that millions upon millions of mammals get along just fine despite the ******** situation, it's obviously not much of a disadvantage.


So not really "putting the self destruct mechanism outside the fortress", right? Again, the argument goes in both directions. Which is the whole point I'm making. Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

We can go around on this forever, which is why it's a bad argument for either one.

Evolution can't have a poor result because it has no goal. It isn't sentient. Whether you choose to attribute value judgment to the results has literally no impact on anything.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#243 Apr 26 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

I'm not trying to prove that God is real here, just curious as to what you all think about this.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#244 Apr 26 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Bardalicious wrote:
Evolution can't have a poor result because it has no goal. It isn't sentient. Whether you choose to attribute value judgment to the results has literally no impact on anything.
pfff, shows what you know. Evolution is actually a muslim plot to infect all Americans with the ***. Get with the program man.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#245 Apr 26 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Is it? I'm honestly curious because this would be the first I've heard of it. Every call for ID taught in public school simply asks that when evolution is taught that some mention of an alternative in which some form of intelligence may have guided development be included. I suppose it's possible that some would like to see a Genesis account included, but I've yet to even see proposed ID curriculum, so we'd just be speculating, wouldn't we?
In this case who I was arguing was important. Alma is a Christian, he was arguing from that perspective. It was important to shoot down his platform, which is the bible. Plain and simple.


gbaji wrote:
Not at all. But that's not what you argued. You argued that it was wrong because the biblical account in Genesis is wrong if taken literally. You then argued that most of the people proposing ID believe in said biblical account, and assumed that this meant that any inclusion of ID in public school would therefore include their personal beliefs and only their's. But that's an assumption, isn't it? Can you accept the possibility that many religious people don't care if students learn about any specific creation story, but are merely exposed to the idea that creation is a potential alternative explanation to the question of "how did we get here?".
I've said before, it does not matter what religious people want. Whether they want a specifically Biblical creation story or some other ambiguous Intelligent Design hypothesis presented is irrelevant. Students in a science class room should be taught science. There really are people still in the world who believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. This does not mean that we should suggest to students that there is a possibility that this is the case.

gbaji wrote:
In the context of a world where evolutionary science is often pushed with a markedly anti-religious agenda attached to it (ie: you either reject religion or you reject science), it's not really surprising or unusual for religious people to want to prevent the public school system from teaching the exact science used to make that argument as sole and undisputed fact. Just look at this thread and your own assumptions about creationism and evolution being incompatible. Where did that assumption come from? Given that assumption you make yourself, why be surprised if religious people want to make sure kids are taught that there is an alternative explanation?
My point is there isn't an alternative explanation that holds any kind of water when subjected to scrutiny. Again, it does not matter that they want. Wanting something really badly does not change the facts.


gbaji wrote:
Not even remotely. Trust me on this.
Fair enough.


Quote:
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.


gbaji wrote:
But you attempted to make that argument anyway. Hence, my point. You attempted to argue that since evolution is fact, and evolution and creationism are incompatible, therefore creationism can't be true. There are massive gaping holes in that logic *and* it's an unprovable direction to go. But you did it anyway, didn't you?
This isn't remotely the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it happens. So, spontaneous creation of life is incorrect. These are non-overlapping magisteria.


gbaji wrote:
Possibly not. But that's also not sufficient by itself. I'd suggest you look up Occam's Razor to understand the principle. Simply arguing that something can't be true because it can't be proven to be false doesn't work. You have to also show why there's no value to assuming that it is true. ID simply doesn't add anything except complexity.
I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. Again, using it against someone like Alma would be a waste of time.



gbaji wrote:
I assume you meant "literalist". Of course I can.
Typo, it's late/early.

gbaji wrote:
I think you're getting ahead of the argument. While I'm sure the ultimate goal of ID proponents is to get more people to believe in their version of god at some point in the future, the actual instruction is based on simply questioning assumptions about evolution. I'll repeat that I've yet to read any proposals demanding specific biblical accounts be taught, but merely that their arguments that there must be an intelligent designer to the world be taught. Again, that's clearly aimed at opening the door for people to later enter into a belief in god, but the instruction in the school doesn't make any pronouncements about the specific form the intelligence would take.
Perhaps I was jumping ahead, but can you see why this does not belong in a Biology class?


gbaji wrote:
I just did. They propose teaching a curriculum in which flaws in evolution are taught, and evidence of intelligent design are taught. I've seen nothing to indicate that they intend for any specifics regarding the nature of said intelligence to be taught as part of public school curriculum. But you go ahead and knock yourself out trying to find it. So far, what I see is assumption by you that it's all some plot to sneak bible instruction into public school. Never mind that in the US, that would not be allowed, so the second they "snuck" it in there, the jig would be up, so to speak.
They seek to portray Evolution via natural selection as a theory in crisis. You know with snappy catchphrases like "Teach the controversy". Then, 'suggesting' ID as an alternative. They seem to want to use supposed "gaps" in the theory of evolution as proof of ID. ID has no evidence supporting it under it's own merit. This is the main reason it is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists.


gbaji wrote:
Sure seems like a lot of effort to go through just to have the first class which includes Genesis in their classroom instruction to result in a court case which would eliminate all their work. I'm going to go with the assumption that they don't feel they need to do that and are satisfied with simply opening up students minds to the possibility of an intelligence behind creation.
I didn't say it was a good plan.



gbaji wrote:
But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within.
You should rephrase that to "most religious people".

gbaji wrote:
And it certainly seems like most atheists aren't just against a literal interpretation of the bible, but are opposed to religious belief itself.
Personally? I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to use it to pass legislation that infringes on the rights of others. You know like anti-abortion laws or prohibiting teachers from discussing sexuality with their students even if directly questioned. Unfortunately, some believers won't be happy unless I believe it too.

gbaji wrote:
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about anyone who believes in a "man in the sky"? Lots of times. I've never heard an atheist say that religious belief is just fine as long as the religious people don't take their bible literally. What they do is point out inconsistencies and problems with said literal interpretations and then use those to prove that the entire belief system must be wrong.

Which makes them as bad as those they claim to oppose. There's irony there IMO.
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about how non-believers are going to, and quite rightly, tortured forever after we die? I'm sure just as much.

Most atheists are of the position that religious belief is fine, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.


Not really, at least we don't threaten people with eternal damnation or fly planes into buildings if you disagree with us. We just argue a lot. Fun, isn't it?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#246 Apr 26 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Nilatai wrote:
That's what you said!!!


No I didn't. Even if I did or you interpreted as such, I made it very clear in the last few posts that I wasn't.

Nilatai wrote:
Wat? I said that public opinion should have no bearing on what is taught in schools? Apparently your constitution agrees with me, this is why despite the majority of the US population being religious (this is irrelevant by the way, why do you keep bringing it up?) the teaching of ID was deemed to be unconstitutional in the Kismiller Vs Dover trial.


Because current textbooks already have a section on defining ID and creationism and you're complaining and crying about it because it goes against your beliefs. My counter is that if the U.S behaved the same way as you're behaving now, then there wouldn't be anything taught contradictory to religion.

In other words, quit acting like a baby. It's FAIR to at least define ID rather you agree with it or not.

Nilatai wrote:
I already explained what a "top" scientist is. Someone who belongs to an organisation such as the Royal Society. A "real" scientist is someone who does research, or teaches at University level.


Yes, but you didn't answer the second question. Can a real or top scientist believe in I.D.? According to your criteria of a real or top scientist they can. So, if that's the case, what's the point in making a distinction in real and top scientists?

Nilatai wrote:
Why do you keep asking this? Are you saying that just because blindness occurs in animals, that doesn't mean it's natural in humans?


I keep asking because you keep avoiding it and no, that's not what I'm getting at.

Nilatai wrote:
Yes it does, why would humans be any different?


Because what's natural for a dog isn't what's natural for a human. So, for you to cover ALL animals to say, "well it's natural for fish to breath under water, so it's natural for humans to breath underwater" is silly.

Nilatai wrote:
Wat? Why are we talking about other instincts, when did we get off of talking about sexuality?


What are you talking about? Your argument was that homosexuality occurs naturally within animals, so therefore it's natural among humans because we are also animals. Are you now making distinctions on naturally occurring traits in nature among other naturally occurring traits in nature? What is the criteria? Only if it supports your argument?

Nilatai wrote:
No, I'm a primate. A great ape to be precise. So are you, actually. Baboons are known to be *** too, by the way.


So apes are humans? That's pretty funny... Keep telling yourself that.

Nilatai wrote:
Do you know why we start off crawling? Because we don't have the necessary bone or muscle density as an infant to walk. Do you know why this is? Because during gestation more time is spent developing our brains. Brains that give us our niche in the animal kingdom. Brains that we evolved that give us the ability to be sentient. Brains that people like you can use to question whether evolutions even took place at all.


First, are you willingly being ignorant? How many times do I have to say religion and science are not mutually exclusive that I agree with forms of evolution happening. Second, the point is as adults we walk on our feet when we could very well crawl if we wanted to.

Nilatai wrote:
No it doesn't. Do you think some people are weird because they sleep during the day and go to work at night? We're diurnal mammals. It's not natural for people to be awake at night time! Scorn the weird night people!


Not if they are working, but just to be on a reverse cycle for no apparent reason, yes I do and I'm sure most people would also. It has everything to do with society and you just refuse to accept it. When they sleep is further away from my point than HOW they sleep.

My point, which it seems that you completely overlooked, is that as people we have evaluated our bodies and made determinations as what is "normal" or not and that is no different than how we sexually please ourselves.

What's your opinion on furries? What about women ************ with weird objects like pool sticks, peanut butter and musical instruments at band camp?

Nilatai wrote:
What the **** is your point about homosexuality any way? You're opposed to it, but you claim it has nothing to do with your religion. Now you say you don't think it's unnatural. So, what do you have against homosexuals?


Ah! That's what I've been trying to tell you with the blindness in nature question if you ever just answer the question.

In either case, neither of the above (religion or natural) promotes you to ridicule me in anyway shape or form as I haven't said anything negative towards homosexuals. So, please explain to me how I'm a f**ktard other than "I don't agree with you?"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#247 Apr 26 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's actually surprising how many articles mentioned the same quote, but not one of them had a link to the bill itself. You'd think in this modern age of things like hypertext links, that people who write online articles would learn how to use them.

Or you could show a little initiative rather than balling on about laws you're too lazy to look up yourself.
gbaji wrote:
Any argument about something being a poor design, can be argued to be a poor result of evolution as well. We could easily argue that an intelligent designer would know that said exterior location of ********* wouldn't really result in a disadvantage when he designed them to be that way.

Evolution has no "poor results". Intelligent Design requires an intelligent designer and so you can pass judgment on its designs. Evolution just is, for positive results or negative (to the organism itself).

Edited, Apr 26th 2011 9:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#248 Apr 26 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

I'm not trying to prove that God is real here, just curious as to what you all think about this.
Water molecules are "bent". When they solidify they form crystalline lattices. The molecules are more widely spaced because of their shape than in the liquid forum. This leads to a lower density because the same mass takes up a larger volume. Thus, the solid floats on the liquid.

Not randomly, it's just how water is. You make the assumption that life is the goal of the Universe.




edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#249 Apr 26 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
This isn't about evolution, but how do you explain water?

In every other substance known to man the solid is more dense than the liquid, but not with water. If this were true with water, then life would not exist. That just happened randomly?

Why not? I mean, if it wasn't like that then we wouldn't be here to talk about it but that's hardly evidence that it was "made" that way any more than your existence being proof of a creator because if your parents hadn't "randomly" met, you wouldn't be here to talk to.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Apr 26 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Nilatai wrote:
edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai


And now, the healing can begin.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#251 Apr 26 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
edit:
Alma wrote:
So apes are humans?
I read this and realised I'm wasting my time communicating with you. That's not what I said. You truly are an idiot.

You can go and pat yourself on the back for winning a debate or whatever you think you've accomplished now.


Edited, Apr 26th 2011 10:16pm by Nilatai


And now, the healing can begin.
I'm starting to feel better already, my brow is significantly less furrowed.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (39)