Every day I get to read about some nut job who thinks that just because they teach evolution in school, they will teach their kids to not believe in God. Apparently there are creationists on the Galapagos who are leading people around telling them that the earth is only 10,000 years old. For the love of Darwin! 10k!!! Are they fucking stupid? Do they wish to live in stupidity all their life. I mean...if they want to read the Bible and say, " All these things happened because God did them, so stop asking questions." Then they should move into a grass hut away from the rest of the world. If they don't want science to ask questions then they should not reap the rewards of science. Everything they use nowadays, from electricity to their phones prove that the earth is older then a couple thousand years. I have truly had it. Here are some good Quotes:
" * Stop all the talk of Darwinists and Darwinism! We like Darwin all right, but he is not our pope or idol. He's a smart guy who came up with a wonderfully elegant idea that has been greatly improved and expanded over the years. Calling all evolutionists Darwinists is like calling all Christians Athanasians; it may not be entirely repugnant to the addressee, but it speaks volumes about the ignorance of the speaker. It ignores all the important historical changes that have occurred, and labels you immediately as unaware and uninformed.
* Quit attacking the facts of evolution! Literally millions of biologists have been contributing to the body of knowledge we call evolution, and there are libraries full of data that support it. When you make up nonsense like "information theory and entropy disprove evolution" or "There is zero scientific fossil evidence", you are engaging in denial. These are statements that just tell the listener that you are ignorant; you are wrong. We know a great many things about evolution and the history of life on earth, and denying them just discredits you in an Augustinian sense. If Intelligent Design creationism purports to add new mechanisms to the well established biological processes of evolution, tell me what they are and what positive evidence you have for them!
* The Argumentum ad Consequentiam is a fallacy, not a valid line of argument! Even if evolution did lead to atheism, immorality, man-on-cockroach sex, and voting Democratic, that is no more a point against the theory than is the fact that gravity makes people go splat when they step off of a ten-story building. I also am not interested in your list of evil people who believed in evolution, because I've got an even longer list of evil people who believe in Christianity; because people have some bad ideas does not mean that all of their ideas are bad, nor does a single good idea or act justify every single effusion that bubbles through their brain.
* Speaking of atheism, drop it. When as demonic an atheist as Richard Dawkins can praise Ken Miller(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) fulsomely, it's not us that have a problem with religious toleranceit's you.
* Stop whining about "fairness"! Losers cry "unfair, unfair" when they're getting their butt kicked. The Chicago Cubs don't get to win the World Series just because it would be fair, and they don't get to pass a law declaring themselves the championsthey have to beat the competition on the playing field. The fact that ID can't pass muster on the playing ground of science doesn't justify legislating it into school curricula, and is most definitely not an argument for the validity of ID. Every time you whimper about discrimination and censorship, you're admitting you are failures. ~ PZ Myers, from Pharyngula, a biology/evolution blog."
From Some Smart Guys
" One of the greatest anomalies in the history of scientific creationism and flood geology has been the near non-presence of well educated geologists (Numbers, 1993). Even most of the promising young evangelicals who undertook advanced work in geology emerged with badly shaken faith in strict Creationism. J. Lawrence Kulp was mentioned above. F. Donald Eckelmann, a Wheaton alumnus, ultimately became chair of Brown University's geology department and Christian evolutionist. Davis Young, the son of an eminent Old Testament scholar, studied geology at Princeton and moved on to M.S. work at Penn State, still a believer in the Morris version of the Genesis flood. During his Ph.D. work with Eckelmann at Brown, Young became more and more disenchanted with Creationist ideas, subsequently writing a book (1977) charging flood geologists with teaching "bad geological science." The same scenario ensued for Nicholas Rupke, a Dutch student of P. H. Kunen, who submitted a manuscript on cataclysmal sedimentation for publication by the CRS. At CRS urging Rupke came to Princeton in 1968 and completed a Ph.D. in 1972 under F. B. Van Houten and A. G. Fisher. He finished by accepting organic evolution and forsaking the faith of his family, going on to Oxford and a career in the history of science. Harold James, Jr., and Edward Lugenbeal attended the Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary before being recruited to do graduate work at major institutions at the expense of the Adventist Geological Research Institute. James, after earning his doctorate in geology at Princeton, was found to have been "so indoctrinated" as to require dismissal by the GRI. Lugenbeal studied prehistoric archeology at Wisconsin before resigning from GRI citing "the emotionally and ethically debilitating attempt to bolster our peoples' faith by telling them a series of partial truths about science" (Numbers, 1993)."
Ok...Now you MUST see THIS!
15 comments:
I didnt come from no monkey!
No, you did not, but thousands of years ago, your ancestors did.
Sure thing...."the d....arwin" and jesus was JUST a prophet....
Josué...you disappoint me. Jumping to ignorant conclusions like the above comment really shows the exact way creationists think. Did I ever say anything about Jesus? Do you actually believe that Evolution makes God superfluous? Man, comments like yours remind me of BJ and his instant assumption that I am going to hell because I am a Scientist. I expected more from you.
Give me a break. I was making a parallel with the statement...Not inferring anything about your belief in Jesus. If I EVER need to direct a comment to anyone, I tell them directly. No need to sidestep.
If it makes you feel happy to categorize me though, then knock yourself out.
Whatever, Fundie. Don't you have "Culture of Life" ralley to go to?
(^_^)
All scientists should do honest research and reports, like all politicians should be honest people and do good things for our country, like all "Christians" should be kind to others and do good things in life. Does everyone do what they should ? We hope so, but of course not. We should all strive to be better people. For myself, some science is cool. You gotta know what to trust and what not to trust.
You're right...I should have put a smile icon into my first post and THEN you would have realized that I was piggy-backing off my reference to d....arwin....I'll be at my ralley and you can keep reading a thesaurus so you continue to impose your esotericism on the simpleton masses....
Anybody here seen "Big Fish"? Even the parrots in the jungles dont talk about religion, never know who you're going to offend. :D
hello there. the parrots (or rather macaws) in the jungle actually do the speaking for the spirits. anyway... science is a religion, it's main principle/ precept being the practice of applying the scientific method (hypothesis testing). Christianity is also a religion, it's main purpose being the practice (in life) of principles outlined in the old and new testaments (depsite this blather about accepting jesus as the son of god and going to a happy place that isn't here). These religions are not neccesarily mutually exclusive, both are utilized by those in power to divide and utilize those who are not in power. The precepts of Christianity and Science have been raped and robbed and twisted for well more than 2000 years. Scientists and Christians really ought to join up together and take back their religions from these fucks like Pat Robertson, George Bush, nuclear weapons scientists, etc that have attempted to destroy the good and true for the green and gold. Finally, if I have offended you, that's good - you're thinking - if you don't like what i have to say, that's even cooler: pray for me, i like to get better. As the fine hip-hop artists dead prez have said: "meet us up on capitol hill and we can get into some real shit"
I'll have to disagree with you on science being a religion. As for Science and Christianity being twisted by the will of Fundies to suit their own means, I see your point and agree with you on that. It is as if they fear educated people.
Well, interestingly enough, I suppose our diagreement would depend on how religion is defined. I would define religion as the practice of moral or ethical principles in daily life. One could also add ritual and ceremony if that's your thing. From that basis, science is a religion, in that a scientist daily practives the principle of hypothesis testing. The ritual and ceremony happens in the lab or in the field. Anyone who's learned the correct way to handle a test tube or use a brunton compass has seen the ceremony of science. In Christianity, of course, there are many more spiritual principles to follow (nearly 700 in the old testament alone), and we all know some of the ceremonies involved. However, I will also say that science and christianity are not only twisted by the aleged fundamentalists (what in the fuck is a fundament, anyway?), they are perverted by liberals, pacifists, conservatives, hawks, moslems, arawaks, and nearly everyone else. As i see it, republicans and christian fundamentalists, while full of shit, have absolutely no lock on using religion, science, their mouths, the media, etc, to twist religion/science to support whatever crap they want to spout on any given day. Of course war is unchristian and has been proven scientifically to be unprofitable. Rich liberals (and conservatives) also use christianity to prefer Martin Luther King over Malcom X or the Panthers because King was allegedly about peace, and because they are just as scared as the fundamentalists of having brown folks in charge. Either way, the whole thing is pretty much untenable and will probably fall down at some point soon here. At least we can hope.
Morality and Science are not to be lumped together. Ethics and Science have to go hand in hand, but morality is a no no.
There is no true Religion.
Careful what you say about Muslims.
IF what you say you believe to be true then why bother talking about it? And Damn...it is 2:23 in the AM why are you still up?
Listen, I find that Christianity is twisted mostly/mainly by Christians. But, we are going into one of the forbidden topics.
how do you propose to differently define ethics and morality? do you mean that morality is ethics without the godhead? I would posit to you that science indeed has a godhead, but that most have blinded themselves from looking at it. Or, the scientist believes she is the godhead. Additionally, I would say that the main fault I find with science is it's refusal to include the relationship of the experimenter to the emperiment or the observer to the observed. Perhaps it is the lack of moral principles in science that allows us to use it to kill without thinking. (I do not here refer to abortion, but to war machines, oil, global warming, bhopal, and the like).
Why should I be careful about what I say about anyone of any religion? Is it not true that we are bashing science and christianity? we can bash buddism too, should you like. also, I would be happy to bash pacifism, as I killed billions of living things the last time I took a shit. there is fault to be found in most ideas, even mine...
jesus h. dog runs on his own time, man.
Of course christianity is twisted mainly by christians. the Koran is probably twisted mostly by muslims. the ten precepts twisted by buddists. the big book of alcoholics anonymous twisted mainly by alcoholics, and so on with these religious texts. generally, the only people who really get those things in a deep and true sense are those who spend many hours in study and contemplation, and consider both the historical and modern perspective, as well as any languages or cultures that may need to be studied. For example, no translation of the bible prior to 1950 contained the word "homosexual". Also, there are probably a few thousand people in the world who read or speak the languages that these ancient religious texts were written in. Most of those people believe that the bible is the word of god. however, the rarely agree on what the word says. herin lies the problem. this is why people become monks and study this shit for lifetimes. A far as forbidden topics go, i don't see this being one. Even if it was, I say we should talk about it. I mean, we can't (as a society or people or culture or however you define it) recover from the pain and abuse of something we refuse to talk about. That which we talk about we must acknowledge. That which we ackowledge we must deal with. That which we deal with, we must grow from. So, all in all, talking about it is probably a good idea.
oh yes, and of course there is no one true religion. the word gets corrupted by the vessel through which it speaks. what I've found is instead a vein of truth that runs through ALL religions.
Post a Comment