crazy-tiger Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 the guy with the butt forehead <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can't say I've heard them described like that before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Is the Tribble the guy with the butt forehead, or is it the thing on his head? Quark is a Ferengi. They are the male chauvenists and the greedy bastards of the galaxy. They are basically Americans exaggerated to the nth degree, IIRC. Tribbles are furry things that multiply more than rabbits when you feed them anything, even just grain. Oh, and Klingons hate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 no, no, it's Tribbles that hate Klingons, even if they look like the rest of us except for grey suits and pointed beards. I think Klingons originally were supposed to look like devils, but not in red; until they were plasticized with ridges in TNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 no, no, it's Tribbles that hate Klingons, even if they look like the rest of us except for grey suits and pointed beards. Hmm...perhaps the hatred is mutual? I think Klingons originally were supposed to look like devils, but not in red; until they were plasticized with ridges in TNG. I thought the Klingons were originally supposed to represent the Soviet-era Russians, and originally their foreheads were bits of broccoli taped on or something, IIRC. Since they were supposed to be the enemy, I wouldn't be surprised if the show was trying to make them look like devils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Hmm...perhaps the hatred is mutual?I thought the Klingons were originally supposed to represent the Soviet-era Russians, and originally their foreheads were bits of broccoli taped on or something, IIRC. Since they were supposed to be the enemy, I wouldn't be surprised if the show was trying to make them look like devils. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In an interview with John Colicos (Kor) he mentioned that he had quite a hand in the appearence of Klingons in TOS... Seems the general idea was to make them a kind of "Mongolian" race, (warfare orientated) and the make-up was supposed to add the visual idea of what the Mongols were like to the characters. As a side note, Kor was supposed to be a recurring character in TOS, but when they needed a klingon in subsequent episodes he was unavailable... hence the appearence of Kang and Koloth. [/trekkie] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isak The Newt Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 LOL WOOPS sorry, edited: i didnt realise there were more pages so i was replying to the last post on page 1 that i saw... howd you get from religious to star trek... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 LOL WOOPS sorry, edited: i didnt realise there were more pages so i was replying to the last post on page 1 that i saw...howd you get from religious to star trek... Strange, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Strange, isn't it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is Ex-Christian.net... staying on topic is strange, flitting away on a tangent is normal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Dave Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I think the biggest misconception for evolution is that WE, humans, COME from Monkeys and Apes. But apparently monkeys and apes and humans have a common ancestor, we're not from monkeys and apes, we're from the same ancestor they are. http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/evolution/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right if you mean we didn't descend from chimpanzees, gorillas, or monkeys. But, scientifically, humans are apes. We are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas or monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 howd you get from religious to star trek... Well, when I joined Starfleet (the fan organization), my parents joked that I had joined a cult... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 OK, same subject, different perspective. My sympathies lie with the christians who have been fed this garbage their entire lives. They believe creationism because the bible, preacher, their parents,etc... say so. I think that knowlege is the key to changing this. If ID isn't brought up in class, how can they learn the holes in creationism? If only evolution is taught then little minds will just be closed off. Remember, these are children who have been taught that evolution is evil and not to listen. Wouldn't it be more productive to bring up ID and then proceed to debunk it? That way the kids have a chance of questioning their chistian upbringing. I wonder how many here would have deconverted it they didn't have access to information that debunked what the bible teaches. I say give them the knowlege they need so that they can question their "brainwashed" beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Wouldn't it be more productive to bring up ID and then proceed to debunk it? Yes, but the problem is that the ID proponents don't want it debunked, they want it treated like a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Why should it not be under the same scrutiny(sp) that everyother science is under? They want it taught, then find, but then show the holes. Other wise school might as well be just another church sermon. Besides, can they really stop a teacher from show the holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Why should it not be under the same scrutiny(sp) that everyother science is under? They want it taught, then find, but then show the holes. Other wise school might as well be just another church sermon. Besides, can they really stop a teacher from show the holes? ID isn't a science!!! That's the problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 ID isn't a science!!! That's the problem! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am not disputing that. Not at all. But how can you show them that it is NOT a science and that it is garbage without opening up the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I am not disputing that. Not at all. But how can you show them that it is NOT a science and that it is garbage without opening up the discussion? Because there is no discussion if it's not a science. That's like bringing up Astrology when you're taking Earth Science...it's not a science, therefore it shouldn't be discussed as if it were an alternative theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 So your propose to just let these children to grow up believing a lie without giving them the chance to learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 So your propose to just let these children to grow up believing a lie without giving them the chance to learn? A chance to learn what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 That what they have been taught (creationism) simply can not be true or reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 That what they have been taught (creationism) simply can not be true or reality. I would have no right as a public school teacher to question or correct their religious belief. All I would be responsible for is teaching them science. If you wish to go on about teaching them "TRUTH", then why stop there, why not introduce "Debunking God" into public schools...see how popular that becomes. But really, you can't teach someone anything unless they want to learn it. And a child is gonna take their parents word over your word anyways, so all you can do is teach them science and that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Difference being that those who support ID is trying to put it in school already. If they want it in so bad, then fine let them have it, but at the same time use science to show them that it is wrong. One sided discussions are fruitless. You can't just say that "it isn't true" and expect it to be believed. In one of these threads there was a story where some children asked about ID and were told to basically "just shut up and sit down". This seems to be counterproductive. Why not just answer their questions and give them a chance to learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Difference being that those who support ID is trying to put it in school already. If they want it in so bad, then fine let them have it, but at the same time use science to show them that it is wrong. One sided discussions are fruitless. You can't just say that "it isn't true" and expect it to be believed. What do you think this court hearing that is going on is doing? In one of these threads there was a story where some children asked about ID and were told to basically "just shut up and sit down". This seems to be counterproductive. Why not just answer their questions and give them a chance to learn? Because there's beaurocracy in schools, and teachers can lose their jobs if they talk about religious or philosophical questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 What do you think this court hearing that is going on is doing? Right, I understand that. I am simply asking if there is a problem with taking it from a one sided and balony to a two sided arguement. Turn the tables so to speak. Because there's beaurocracy in schools, and teachers can lose their jobs if they talk about religious or philosophical questions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, but it is the IDers that are trying to put religion into a science class. To me this opens up the door to use science to debunk it. They want it in a science class, not me, but if they want it in there so bad, then show both sides. That is all I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Right, I understand that. I am simply asking if there is a problem with taking it from a one sided and balony to a two sided arguement. Turn the tables so to speak.True, but it is the IDers that are trying to put religion into a science class. To me this opens up the door to use science to debunk it. They want it in a science class, not me, but if they want it in there so bad, then show both sides. That is all I am saying. Because there is no argument if it's not science. Why put things that are unscientific into a science classroom? Then we'd have to teach EVERYTHING and debunk it. 1) There's not enough time in a school year to debunk everything when you should be teaching them about the scientific method. 2) Kids are NOT gonna be THAT interested in science if all it's doing is talking about religious beliefs when they could be dissecting cow eyeballs. 3) Science is not about majority vote, it's about teaching what follows the scientific method and what works. If something doesn't follow the scientific method, then it's not science and shouldn't be taught or brought into a science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a midnight star Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 THEY seem to think that it is. THEY want to try to use science to try and show how it is or could be possible. I don't know. I just feel sorry for those kids who are learning that this is correct and is backed up by science, when in fact it is just bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts