What does your candidate think about gaming?

[TheGrandMom]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Why couldn't we have evolved from cats...

Weeeeeeelllllll.......women.........

*BANG*

*BOOM*

*BIF*

TGM's Son: Move along.....nothing to see here....

[Akashimo]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Why couldn't we have evolved from cats...

Scary, I agree.

/wants to be a nekojin

[Malacite]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

honestly, why the hell did it have to be monkies?

How about a Lion or a Lynx or a Tiger... or foxes/wolves.... -. - something COOL


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjqdLG5RNg[/ame]




Also found a video of a monkey raping a frog... (no lie) but I'm fairly sure I can't post that >_>

[Feba]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Because of a species of cat did evolve into a semi-intelligent life form, they'd be all "meh, screw it". Society wouldn't have gone anywhere.

You need monkeys for that "HEY GUYS, LOOK AT HOW FAR I CAN THROW MY SHIT WITH THIS THING LOL" factor that causes progress.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Ok. How about we teach both sides of every issue then, for fairness?

When we teach the Holocaust, we should also teach about the idea that it's all a hoax, and never happened. Same with the moon landing. When we teach the solar system, we should also teach about how the earth might be flat. When we teach biology, we should give equal weight to the process of sperm fertilizing an egg and the possibility that babies are brought by a stork.

The Holocaust is HISTORY, Evolution is supposed to be SCIENCE. We're allowed to question history and form opinions around it with no consequence to our careers or grades. History has recorded accounts, witnesses yet can be tailored to be be written in one's favor or against it.

Science is supposed to be about asking the questions and finding answers through a specific process. Yet we're not being allowed to question evolution specifically in schools.

Do you see the problem? First of all, there are dozens of creation theories out there, and if you want to be fair you'd have to teach all of them. Secondly, if you're doing it in the name of teaching alternate theories, you have to teach an alternate idea to hundreds or even thousands of very important events and phenomena. Nobody is against giving people access to this sort of bullshit, kids should be free to learn about it WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE-- in their freetime, when they're exposed to lots of bullshit. It would take a huge amount of time and resources to teach it in the classroom, and honestly our students don't have time for that. If we wanted to teach every side to every story we might make slightly more informed students; at the cost of most of them dying before they have a high school education.

This is pretty long for a weak excuse. The simple question here is why spend so much time banging evolution into people's heads when so much of the science behind it has holes and is being constantly revised? Why can't it just be taught as a theory instead of being treated like an institution? Students are allowed to question anything except evolution in schools, I just find that peculiar.

You need to go back to science class. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. That would be abiogenesis. And we're making plenty of progress in that field. Evolution deals SOLELY with the fact that life changes over time. Evolution never promises to explain the beginnings of life-- the fact is, we don't know how life began on earth. We can get pretty good ideas of how it COULD have happened, again through studies of abiogenesis, but I doubt we will ever know precisely. Teaching any creation theory, including scientific ones, over another in a classroom is deceptive and a waste of time.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are joined at the hip and very relevant to each other. Darwin was there when these studies began. The Theory of Biogenesis pretty much exists to find the missing link between the Big Bang Theory and the theory of Evolution.

If any creation or evolution theory is waste of time, then why teach any? Its your "coulds" and "what ifs" against another with no proof. Good science reaches a actual conclusion, evolution does not reach a conclusion.

As for not allowing creationism in schools, it again has nothing to do with censorship anymore than not teaching Holocaust denial or Flat Earth or 9/11 truth. You wouldn't want someone teaching your children that the Holocaust never happened, and it's all a massive hoax arranged by Jews for some nefarious gain. That doesn't mean you'd censor them; you'd let them go rant on forums and KKK rallies and associate with Neonazi's, that's the cost of freedom of speech; but you sure as fuck wouldn't let them teach your children.

There's actually legislation in the works regarding hate speech. I dislike the views of racists but its also undeniably a potential compromise of the freedom of expression. How do we ultimately define hate speech? Taken to extremes, there could be potential abuses there.

Oh, and by the way BBQ, if you really care about the first amendment, you really ought to know that the Supreme Court ruled teaching creationism in schools unconstitutional a very long time ago.

I'm aware of what the separation of church and state is, thanks. But that doesn't mean a generalized view of creation theory compiled from various religions couldn't be taught. There are Bible History courses permitted in schools, its not about having some church service, its about History and how it relates to the Bible. You'd be surprised how much creation theory crosses over between religions, too. It can easily be taught as an alternative theory, people just seem to think its going to turn into some church service if its taught. That's bullshit.

We learn about all kinds of religions in History courses and even literature. Buddism, Hinduism, Islam and so on. No harm in learning about them either, learning it is important because those faiths affect cultural perspectives and thier laws. The very basis or theater, art and music were born from religions. Law and even the scientific process had origins in religions.

[Feba]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

The Holocaust is HISTORY, Evolution is supposed to be SCIENCE.

Want to argue about that, fine. You're still completely ignoring Flat Earth.

The idea that we aren't allowed to question evolution is hilarious. Evolution has been questioned and challenged thousands of times for at least a century. It has withstood that.

The simple question here is why spend so much time banging evolution into people's heads when so much of the science behind it has holes and is being constantly revised?

One word: Bullshit. Stop reading Discovery Institute propaganda and go actually learn about the subject.

Why can't it just be taught as a theory instead of being treated like an institution?

Why not teach gravity as a theory? Why not teach electromagnetism as a theory?

The fact is that they ARE taught as theories, because that is what they are. You're confusing "Theory" with "Made up idea with no backing"; again, stop reading creationist propaganda and take a science course.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are joined at the hip and very relevant to each other. You couldn't really have one without the other.

Bullshit. Naturalistic evolution is perfectly possible with a supernatural creation of life; say some very advanced being (a god, alien, or otherwise) created initial lifeforms, and then those continued to evolve into the present.

If any creation or evolution theory is waste of time, then why teach any?

I've never advocated teaching abiogenesis. It's plenty shaky-- it shows how life COULD have been created, but it's not a definite. When we have more information on the subject, I'd have no problem saying "these are various scientific methods by which life has been created from inorganic components, and may be how life formed on earth". However, not teaching creation is NOT a reason to not teach evolution. Evolution is incredibly important to even a basic knowledge of biology, and society suffers greatly from its' neglect in education. Evolution works with pretty much any creation theory short of Last Thursdayism. As long as you're sane enough to not reject hundreds of millions of years of fossil records, evolution does not care what created life to begin with.

the missing link between the Big Bang Theory and the theory of Evolution.

Wow. You honestly think that there's a need to link the Big Bang and evolution? Again, stop reading creationist propaganda. The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. I mean, they're both part of how we got here, but that's about it.

There's actually legislation in the works regarding hate speech.

This is a different subject; but in any case, you would not want someone teaching something which is incredibly irrational and harmful to your children; unless of course you are equally irrational and harmful.

people just seem to think its going to turn into some church service if its taught.

That's exactly what it is. It's teaching religion as fact. That is what churches do.

We learn about all kinds of religions in History courses and even literature.

Exactly, history and literature. But the subject doesn't need to be covered. Students don't know about the history of religion and how it has impacted culture and society; generally speaking. If there's a student out there who doesn't know what creationism is, it can be summed up in one, very short, sentence. "The idea that some supernatural power or being created life.". It doesn't need to be covered, or explained; anymore than if a student asks about the earth being flat. It might have been important to some historical work, but that doesn't make it an important part of a school curriculum.


In closing: BBQ, go take a science course, because you either failed to learn, have forgotten, or have been brainwashed to the point where you gravely misunderstand basic parts of evolution and science in general. In the short term, check out Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

[Malacite]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

I'd like to note that Obama actually feels like science and evolution only strengthen his belief in God, more or less siding with Feba's notion of there being a God and us having evolved.

But, who knows maybe that LHC will provide some answers on Wednesday.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

I'd like to note that Obama actually feels like science and evolution only strengthen his belief in God, more or less siding with Feba's notion of there being a God and us having evolved.

Funny, I had a science teacher that said pretty much more or less the same thing. And she was a self-proclaimed dedicated Republican.

Spoilers!

And she also said that our current president is the only one to ever make her ashamed to say that.

[Feba]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Feba's notion of there being a God and us having evolved.

That isn't my notion, I'm an atheist. However, there are plenty of people out there who do believe in God and find that it fits just fine with evolution. The Clergy Letter Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for example has collected the signatures of over eleven thousand clergymen. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ; even the Catholic Church supports it.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Emphasis mine. And really, you'd have to be insane to take every word in the bible literally. There are a lot of things which can be shown to be false (for example, the number of legs on an insect) easily. That, combined with the numerous translations it has gone through over the years, and the fact that the stories in it are picked out of a much larger volume of works, and it becomes extremely nonsensical to take everything in it at face value. The following quote, from the aforementioned clergy letters project, is a far more reasonable (as far as religion can be reasonable, in any case) way of interpreting things; emphasis mine:

While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

But, who knows maybe that LHC will provide some answers on Wednesday.

Um. The Higgs Boson isn't literally God.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Watch as Feba dissects and distorts what Kitten said.

Moving on...

I will point out again, schools have fired science teachers for questioning evolution as a topic. And if you don't think there's holes in it, I can't help you change your mind, you're about as keen to find those holes as you are to quote the bible chapter and verse on its "mistakes."

Oh wait...

Everyone knows the Bible went through a several different translations, that the Roman Catholic church, King James and Shakespeare did thier number to it as well. They teach that stuff in seminaries, its not a revelation that the Bible was written by men and that some things get lost in translation. Some versions go deep enough to study and cover the elements that have odd translations. Its why we have scholars for this kinda thing.

I think a lot of people believe that the truth lies somewhere in between since that one of evolution's potential flaws are similar to the Bible's proported flaws. People who argue against the Bible literally (and people have), they say he world couldn't be created in seven days and that it took billions of years, there's carbon dated proof.

The potential flaw in carbon dating is actually similar to the argument that the world couldn't be created in seven day. We don't really know what passed as a "day" back then. The Bible always portray's God's perception of time as different from man's and, God notwithstanding, we really don't know what earth's orbit was like back when things were evolving.

Its better summed up in a joke:

"God, what's a million years to you?"
"A second."
"God, what's a million dollars to you?"
"A penny"
"May I have a penny, Lord?
"In a second."

Both the Bible and Carbon dating tell man's concept of time, which could be wrong. Those seven days, as Obama and several others believe could have very well been those billions of years in the context of God's idea of a day.

And yet you still have knuckleheads on both sides that argue it was/wasn't seven days. One takes it too literally and the other has no concept of metaphor.

If the majority of people think the truth lies somewhere in between, and I think they do, I don't see harm in teaching it that way in a secular fashion or as one of the possible theories. Plenty of teachers sneak it in anyway, its only they get in trouble when someone has to be a spaz about it.

[Malacite]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

People who take the Bible literally/at face value need a reality check...

It's a guide line.

[Neomage]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Knowing the Theory of Evolution is required for anyone to understand a basic biology course. Knowing creationism is not. I could understand teaching it in an elective course, but not a science course.

Also, if there is a God who created life, well... he has to be the worst underachiever ever. Which might explain why humans are so lazy, given they were created in His image or something like that.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Also, if there is a God who created life, well... he has to be the worst underachiever ever. Which might explain why humans are so lazy, given they were created in His image or something like that.

Free will.

You know, that thing Malacite hates because it made Uematsu leave SE Free will is that other thing, aside from opposable thumbs and intellect, that separates us from the animals.

[Feba]

Re: What does your candidate think about gaming?

Hahaha. "If the majority of people think one way, it's secular!"


BBQ, nobody needs to distort what you say. You're crazy enough to do it yourself.