Tendo City

I guess in hippie terms, you could say that we're all connected to each other, all manner of life and living things.

...

Something like that I suppose.

Yup.

But all the atheism and secularism aside.

The arguement here is weither Inteligent design is valid enough in its methods to be taught in a biology class room not be viewed as "pseudo", Scientist have always said you follow the scientific method have a hypothesis (educated guess) then do the experiment give us some evidence and results to support your claims for us to look at and we may "concider it a valid alternate theory to the official one" so far they only response is either "faith" or that scientific community is in a conspiracy out to get them, So far they have said the ID community has not gotten past the "hypothesis" stage has not shown anything valid enough to be accepted most especially to be placed in a biology class before it gets the stamp of aproval.

The problem with some of the ID that I see is that many of them have flawed assumptions about science to begin with, Many are opposed to "evolution" existence all together trying to call a "darwin" cult. Unfortunately to many of the ID are of that very fundiementalist bible literalist thumber class their response to the scientific community criticism is that they are of that "darwin cult class". ID is extremely politicaly motivated and not scientific.

The problem with ID its made to be a "opposition to evolution all together" not a even concidering the possibility that evolution is as factual as the theory gravity and atomic theory disregarded alot of the obvious, Given the absolutely staggering amount of fossil evidence starting from the cambrian period where most fish had no jaws no teeth some where either completely blind or had limited visual abilities, There still is a few surviving jawed prehistoric blind fish but it seems the new more advance class of fish have out done them the blinders no longer hold majority in the sea and are close to extinction.

My father excepts evolution and God at the same time, I used to as well, My vastly deeper knowledge in science and evolution thanks to speaking with some actual professional biologist on the infidelguy forums .But its not what made me suddeny doubt the judeo christian god,As you can always say what if he guided evolution? Or he had taken his sweet old time?

If you can believe in evolution and god at the same time why then is "ID" even neccessary in a biology class? You can have it in a religous class discuss all the other reglious groups creation stories and history.

Actually it had taken alot of historical research and study into other equally old "religous holy books" and the bible itself for me.

But some serious bible loonies fear evolution as satanism or a lie of the devil to taint their kids brains make them doubt god that they must shelter their kids from it too private schools and homeschooling to properly insulate them.

Darunia Wrote:They recently discovered feral apes in Africa implementing tools... a female ape used a stick to test how deep a stream was before crossing it. Given they're comparable intelligence and physical similarity, how anyone can deny our relation is... *scoff*... beyond me.

Use of tools is not uncommon in the animal kingdom. Finches, for instance, use twigs to ferret out grubs. Otters use rocks to crack open shells. Certain types of spiders use leaves as rafts to feed on surface-skimming insects.

Ryan Wrote:Use of tools is not uncommon in the animal kingdom. Finches, for instance, use twigs to ferret out grubs. Otters use rocks to crack open shells. Certain types of spiders use leaves as rafts to feed on surface-skimming insects.

Birds have a extinct for nesting leaf and twig gathering all sorts of things together to make one,The Penguins unabled to make nests dueto harsh climate sombody was too dumb and decided to live on a frozen wasteland ,Penguins have the males adapted to making their feet into well thermally insulated nests for the egg and chick, Although I never understood why male penguins would become the nester and not female ones its reverse of other birds and animals, Of course the male is biggest sized to accomidate a nest I guess penguins have a closer relationship to Pappa then mama must suck for the male to have carry a egg and then chick on his feet for months just sit idle untill the female comes back with food.

Penguins sometimes do migrate to warmer regions like the islands off the coast of New Zealand for a vacation, Penguins though are screwed they cant fly and are open game for sharks and killer whales although they can swim quite quickly.So they have to stay in lonely barren chilly Antartica which they have all to themselves though.

Who taught the beaver how to make a dam and lower water levels to create natural barriers for their shelters from predators?

Zarathustra the ancient persian sage prophet and wiseman surprinsingly had a great understanding of beavers and taught how they were of importance to farmers in maintaining marshes for irigation and prevent "floodings" as the marsh sponge up water making homes for other animals and birds, For them beavers were of the "wise class of animals" many later persians made it a crime to kill beavers believing the animal was to inteligent to be a coincidence had to be holy in the form of Arc Angel Vohu Manaah the tender of wisdom and animals according to their mythology.So the greatest crime besides murder at one time in the persian empire was killing a Beaver or animals simular to Beavers like Otters. Zoroastrains have some ecological ideas simular to native american traditional beliefs believing some animals to be blessed others to be cursed (snakes) that God and his order of angels would be displeased for wasteful management of nature and the water purity so they had good hygiene and frowned on abusing animals .


But for a evolutionist, They would believe humans come from nature as do the animals to say they would be incapable of inteligent behavior or clever tricks would be arogant, I have heard that dolphins were trained to solve puzzels and they have the optimum brain capacity of a 5 year old human child making them the second smartest animal tested to date besides humans.

Another myth is that "size" of the brain is what counts, But if you think about how much we have managed to continue to compact and micro size computers and shrink them without losing capacity and ability same could be true for gold ball sized brains or even less in some animals. What prevents "apes" from talking is that the portion of their brain is far undeveloped compared to humans the portion that allows advance verbal speech besides groans and screeches for communication ,Although their "gestural" abilities are capable of alot why some can learn 100 or so "sign language" gestures, Its not just that our brains are bigger but have more hardware hooked into it theirs is more primal with small rooms and areas for growth.

Its amazing that Gorillas have enough brain capacity to check for the depth of water with sticks and use them as rulers to measure it, I know some humans including myself have done it before if we were trying to figure out how deep a specific area was if we couldnt see due to murkyness.

If a golf ball brain sized gorilla could do this, A pre homosapien hominid could have done alot more.



Neanderthals had bigger brain capacity then rival Homosapiens(Humans) neanderthals had everything else bigger , But it prooves size doesnt matter as cause black Humans emerging from africa kicked their asses and had taken their women :) ,In this curiousity didnt kill the cat it made him a fierce tiger where as neanderthals were isolative more shy creatures not botherd about the outside world and were left behind.

Although sadly some thousands years later the skin pigment of african originated humans who settled into europe would become lighter and pinkish in color due to the difference climate in europe and forget they were once negroes themselves and became prejidicial toward their cousins.

Come on, Ryan, you know that's completely different. An ape wading into a stream, then getting back out, breaking off a twig, going back into it, probing ahead of her with the stick... come on. And that's just a single gorilla... chimpanzees are notably more intelligent. Or do I have to explain that to you too?

It's using a tool to accomplish a task, and hardly a complex one at that.

That chimps are relatively intelligent is not in question. But that's not a good litmus test for animal intelligence.

You can prove to someone that 1+1=2 all day long, but inevitably it's up for them to believe it for their self.

But applying that to this, first they have to decide that math exists and follows laws... using their logic here, 1+1 could well equal three if God said so... kind of makes arguing about the way things actually work pointless until someone realizes that the rules do exist and that we should pay attention to them.

Oh, that was supposed to make me forsake my belief in God? My error.

No, that (what I described) doesn't exactly happen very often. Which is why these discussions are so annoying...

Millions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars, infinite voids and nebulas... all of these, God created, yet assigned no particular purpose. Of the 120+ extra-solar planets currently known to exist, he also assigned no purpose. He created all life on one planet, which is merely one out of nine in our system. Why the other eight? Why anything? Logic would dictate that the best way to do something is the easiest way to do it: if you're gonna create a species in your image, why create an infinitely complex and vast cosmos? For the challenge of it?

BAH!

The lord works in mysterious ways. *is arrested for using a done-to-death cliché* Wait, since when is that a crime? Oh yeah, since Darunia's Goron Army conquered this land and Tendo City began being governed by the residents of Death Mountain. Heh, it's kinda like Mount Olympus, home of the gods of Greek and Roman folklore, except Darunia isn't divine; rather, he is an atheist. (But what about the three godesses that created Hyrule and left the Triforce to mark the point at which they left this world?)

Quote:Millions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars, infinite voids and nebulas... all of these, God created, yet assigned no particular purpose. Of the 120+ extra-solar planets currently known to exist, he also assigned no purpose. He created all life on one planet, which is merely one out of nine in our system. Why the other eight? Why anything? Logic would dictate that the best way to do something is the easiest way to do it: if you're gonna create a species in your image, why create an infinitely complex and vast cosmos? For the challenge of it?

You might as well ask why humans only have two arms when having four would be more efficient or why human brains aren't bigger so that they can do more complex thinking. It is what it is.

since Darunia's Goron Army conquered this land and Tendo City began being governed by the residents of Death Mountain.

Thank you for acknowledging our very legitimate, very authoritarian regime. :)

*Gives Geno a cushy job as Provincial Propaganda Officer at Tendo City*

what about the three godesses that created Hyrule and left the Triforce to mark the point at which they left this world?

You believe that old legend? You play too many videogames, kid.

You might as well ask why humans only have two arms when having four would be more efficient or why human brains aren't bigger so that they can do more complex thinking.

No, I needn't ask that... because I am a Goron of science and I accept that human evolved with two arms because all preceding species along out ancetsral lineage had four limbs. That, and as randomly evolved-mutated creatures, we can never be perfect. God, on the other hand, has no defense: he is perfect, and all-powerful, so what's his excuse for doing such a sloppy job with this universe he created! He has to answer to ME now.

Quote:He has to answer to ME now.

That's probably at the top of his list of things to do.

Quote:God, on the other hand, has no defense: he is perfect, and all-powerful, so what's his excuse for doing such a sloppy job with this universe he created!

Perhaps it only seems sloppy to our limited human minds.

Because whatever critter all mammals developed from had two eyes and four limbs. :)

FACT: Here's one that you can try yourself. The next time you see someone nonchanatly walking, kindly notice that their right arm moves in perfect synchonicity with their left leg and vice versa. Then, start walking yourself... by jove, you too walk like this? Go head, try to walk the other way... try to walk with the right arm and leg synched, and vice versa. It feels weird, strange, unnatural, doesn't it? Now, is this because:

a.) ...God arbitrarily decided thus. No reason why.
b.) ...the Yankees suck.
c.) ...because you touch yourself at night.
d.) ...Humans are evolved from four-legged animals that, needing two legs on the ground at any given moment to walk or run, synchronized their fore and rear limbs in this combination. (Go ahead and see if your dogs and cats and horses aren't synchronized identically.)

Or it's because the weight of your body is shifted and your arms swing in such a way as to help keep your balance. You can use that to prove just about anything you want.

Nice try, Great Rumbler, but what I said is textbook anthropology. It's air-tight.

Quote:Question:
Why is it normal to move your arms when you walk or run?

Answer:
I think that while people walk and run their motions are chosen to reduce effort, increase speed, and keep stable. If someone walked or ran with their arms hanging straight down instead of swinging them, they would get more tired. They couldn't run as fast. And they might fall down more. How does swinging your arms make walking and running easier and faster?

I don't think anyone really knows, but here are a few ideas.

1) If you hang from a rope and swing your legs as if you were walking your body will twist back and forth. When you walk, that twisting tendency is still there. Swinging your arms opposite to your legs, like most people do, twists you the opposite way so its easier to walk straight.

2) If you just relax your arms, they will swing because your shoulders move when you walk. It takes effort to stop them from swinging. People are lazy so they let their arms swing.

3) Swinging arms can help push you forward. Each time you swing your arm you throw your fist forward like a ball. At the end of the forward swing your fist pulls your body to catch up. Why doesn't the 'throwing' effect cancel the 'catching' effect? That's the kind of thing we are still trying to figure out.

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=144

And still he defends the indefensible.

Let's not fight anymore, Great Rumbler! Let's be friends again! :love:

We were fighting?

He was being an ass and you responded with fact.

Technically it's fighting, but I'm not sure what transpired deserves that description.

Quote:He was being an ass and you responded with fact.

That's a way to put it...

If you leave out anything resembling the truth that is...

In regards to the reason we swing our arms, fool.

You arrogant asses only think you know the truth anyway.

Yes, because fairy tales are more accurate...

Whatever does it for you.

I hope you two manage to convert someone someday so you don't die of a heart attack by the age of 35.

No need for name calling, Father.

Not name-calling, just commentary. You especially are very high-strung about religion, seeming to take its existence personally.

Like you don't react just as strongly?

I wouldn't say just as strongly. Ryan doesn't seem to give two shits about what others believe, but he'll still defend his beliefs. Darunia, on the other hand, won't accept the fact that there are people in the world who believe in the teachings of various religions and in the existance of a higher entity.

It definitely shows bias, though... he reacted quite strongly. Or how about LL? He went on for quite a while about it too...

A Black Falcon Wrote:Schools are there to teach fact. Evolution is a fact. Religion/intelligent design/whatever is not.

I thought schools were a recruiting ground where liberal professors tried to advance their own agendas about how Bush and Haliburton are conspiring to conquer the known universe with the use of their new Hurricane making machine.

-TheBiggah-

I gotta give it to The Biggah, he''s got it dead-on there.

And I only force my beliefs upon you because as your resident administrator, I love you and want to protect you from your own selves. Everything I do for you is in your best interests.

Am I the only one who feels that most of his college professors are, for the most part, neutral in their teachings? They mostly teach facts that have been proven or theories that somebody else came up with. Granted, I've had some biased teachers throughout high school and college, though a good number of my high school teachers were conservative. I do remember one English teacher I had that was quite liberal, but then my computer science teacher was ultra conservative. I never felt there was any sort of dominance of one party's agenda in the school system. (Though it seems to be a popular stereotype that all college professors are liberal atheists.)

I argued with my history teacher about the economy and the war in Iraq. That was in high school though, most of my college professors are pretty cool.

My professors in college were pretty good. Yeah, I had a handful who were really set in their ways, but most were great and always open to new ways to do things. I had many conversations about computer architecture with one of my professors, and he even had a party at his house once for a few of his students where we debated about which processors had the best architecture, and what hadn't been implemented yet in a mainline processor that should be. It was a fun night, and, at least in the case of that particular professor, showed that a professor could be really open to new ideas as he had many "I had never thought of that" moments.

Neutral? In '04, one of my college teachers (I don't say professor because she does not possess a professor's degree) went around the campus proudly boasting a John Edwards pin.

UMass paid Michael Moore $16,000 per hour to give a speech for two hours. ($32,000). In contrast, I make $ 8 an hour. There have never been any conservative speakers.

One of the flags out in the front of the campus is a rainbow flag. No foolin'.

Plaques in every building proudly display the school's committment to affirmative action.

My history teacher this semester started the very first class by not only suggesting that blacks were left behind on purpose in Louisiana, but drawing a historical comparison to a similar incident in the 1920's.


So the answer is No---Umass Dartmouth is NOT liberally-biased, incase you were wondering.

I've had more liberal professors than conservative sure, of the ones who show their views, but most don't... and we've had both conservative and liberal speakers on campus... not sure which side has more, I don't pay close enough attention to that. But anyway, maybe there is a slight bias towards liberalism in academia, but if there is, I would hope it'd be because the people are better educated so they can see through the lies and mistruths of the other side... :) (not that no smart people are conservative, some certainly are, but still, my point stands. :) )

Har har.

I think it's more because a happy liberal is one who can hide themselves somewhere where reality doesn't touch them except when they want it to. College campuses are a great place for that. So are expresso shops and rock concerts.

Liberals are basically children, so full of altruism and idealism but with no idea how to apply it with any sort of tact, skill, moderation or foresight.

Why does Michael Moore get paid $16,000 an hour to make an ass of himself while the rest of us have jobs that actually contribute something to somebody somewhere which pay us anywhere from $5-10 an hour depending on where we live, what we do, how long we've worked there, etc.? Don't get me wrong, I hate plenty of conservative speakers/journalists the same way I hate Michael Moore (Ann Coulter is a prime example), but Michael Moore sure as hell doesn't deserve $32,000 to spew bullshit for two hours.

And yes, I can see how a college campus would be a great place to hide from facts and reality.

Geno--finally SOMEONE who gets what I'm saying! Thank you. :clap:

Michael Moore wins points for occasional humour factor.

Ann Coulter wins points for Big boobs and a tight ass.

Both of them are hypocrites and pieces of shit who waste precious air time with their rambeling and spinning, I saw Farenheit 9/11 and then the counter to it Farenhype 9/11 I was amazed at how much Michael Moore truly docterd and distorted things he totally destroyed his credibility as far as I am concerned, The thing that annoyed me the most of Farenhype was "Ann coulters" commentaries talk about mindless rambelings hot air, What did she actually "contribute" to that documentary compared to the other commentators? Ok we get the point she wanted to spit on Michael Moore but she did not give any useful additional i"revelations" the least bit to further to debunk Farenheit she was just a cheer leader! You could just stick a elephant mascot into the film have it dance around it may have saved me from losing my attention span and fast forwardind the film, She was just draged in their put in to stretch the film longer to reach the 90 minute quota.

Geno Wrote:And yes, I can see how a college campus would be a great place to hide from facts and reality.

Colleges are quite self-contained in America. For instance, a college professor can have all sorts of opinions on the poor in America, yet how often is he going to be exposed directly to this? How many poor people enroll in universities?

Professors, by and large, are an aloof sort easily convinced their position allows them to assume they know everything.