Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#202 Apr 26 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,851 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
******
34,851 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#207 Apr 26 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,364 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.


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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#209 Apr 26 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not defending this law.


I'm sure.
#210 Apr 26 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 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
******
34,851 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
*****
15,268 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
******
49,648 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
******
34,851 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
*****
15,268 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#218 Apr 26 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 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
******
49,648 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
******
34,851 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
*****
15,268 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
******
35,364 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.


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
*****
15,268 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
*****
15,268 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
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (90)