Well...it had to be on the web...

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Excellent post there, Sorseress. I'm with you 100%.
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
I love it !!! They should be required to teach all of the creation theories...Abo, Inuit, Hopi, etc...
Just think, a high school that takes 7 years to graduate from ! Hey, isn't that how long it takes to get out of Hogwart's ????? Hmmm. Thought that place seemed too sinister.

Cthulhu eats saved souls too, remember.

greg
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
296
Well said, Sorseress. Creationism is a faith, not a science; therefore, it should not be taught in public schools. While "Intelligent Falling" may be unintelligent, not every Creationist wants to be associated with one who disregards the laws of physics in the name of God.

Opiate of the people? Most of us are drug-free. :biggrin2:
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
What disturbs me the most about I.D. and creationism is the complete adherence to cultural relativism.

Both these "guesses" (They are not 'theories' in the true, empiracle scientific sense) are based on the idea that because there is something we don't know, then it must be supernatural in origin.

Basicially, we're the almighty human race, and we are the pinnacle of creation, so if its something we don't know, then it is something way out of our reach. The proponents of both of the aforementioned theories believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the truth, that their view on the reality is what deflines it. The arrogance of our collective race is astounding at times.

Evolution is most likely true. It is an atheistic theory, but not antitheistic. Being a science, it cannot delve into the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Therefore, it exists independently of a creator. ID and Creationism are so interwoven with the concept of a creator that their alternative hypotheses must be that their creator does not exist. This is an equally arrogant notion for any theory even claiming to be scientific for reasons mentioned above. That is what I like about faith - its a personal choice, not something to be proven.

So how are ID and Creationism based in cultural relativism? One states that direct interpretation of the Bible, itself copied and interpreted for centuries into historical and cultural vernacular, is the physical, empiracal truth. This assumption is based soley on a cultural dogma. The other states that, because biological processes are interpreted by some people as "too complex", then some guiding force must be involved. This assumption is based on our technology and scientific level, while which may be advanced still have a long way to go before such blanket statements may be made.

Enough of the Homo sapiens phallus waving. Challenge evolution if we must - no scientific theory should ever become dogma - but let's keep the challenge scientific, and don't let these guys, Ph.D's or otherwise, insult our intelliegence.
 

Colin

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 14, 2002
Messages
3,985
A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians
 

um...

Architeuthis
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,968
Phil, "Half-Baked Theory"?! "Half-Baked Hypothesis" would be exceedingly generous.

I liked this article.

Most of the time in the classroom, micro-evolution - the development of antibiotic resistance, for example - is accepted, said one teacher. It's the concept of macro-evolution - the study of changes over eons - that sparks objections.

"That's like saying, 'I believe in feet but not miles,"' said Jeff Mitton, chairman of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at CU, who called the case for evolution "indisputable."
 

GPO87

Sepia elegans
Staff member
Moderator (Staff)
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
845
Colin said:
i do remember telling her that i doubted Cephalopods were christians

THAT'S AWSOME, hat's off to your wit!

A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity

... I only thought there were three parts to christianity... maybe I need to hit the books again, (it's been a long time since I even opened a bible!) Wonder what 8 parts she was talking about...?
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
Colin said:
A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

Uh, okay... I do remember an "eight-fold path" in Bhudism, but not in Christianity. I would love it if God appeared to the world as an octo.... :angelpus:
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
Colin said:
A few years back we did have a member who joined because they wanted to link the octopus with 8 parts of christianity, I can't remember the exact details... It started with a PM but did get onto the forums at one point.

Uh, okay... I do remember an "eight-fold path" in Bhudism, but not in Christianity.

I would love it if God appeared to the world as an octo.... :angelpus: Though I would think that the fate he/she would meet would be even nastier than crucifixion... :sushi:

Sushi (non deity, please) and Sake, all

John
 

Phil

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
3,034
Thanks for that link, Sorseress. Highly entertaining in a slightly-disturbing sort of way.

I love this quote, it justs beggers the question 'Why?'

...Project Creation in Mount Juliet, Tenn., who would need to raise about $1 million to assemble 30 to 50 pterodactyl and brachiosaur replicas to mingle with live chickens and goats.
 

Cephkid

Sepia elegans
Registered
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
804
I prefer not to get involved in "religion arguments", but I figure I might say something about my views on science vs. religion.

Firstly, look above:"I prefer not to get involved in 'religion arguments' ". Why? Simple. RELIGION is a FAITH.
FAITH as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Faith Pronunciation Key (fth)​
n.​

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Observe number 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

You see? ILLOGICAL BELIEF. You cannot win an argument as, by its very definition, RELIGION does not care whether there is evidence against or for it. Example: I have FAITH in you", is the statement of having an irrational belief of the capabilities of an individual.

Secondly, FAITH/RELIGION is not a SCIENCE. SCIENCE (#

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.)

is very different from RELIGION. SCIENCE, by ITS very definition RESTS SQUARELEY UPON THE FOUNDATION OF EVIDENCE!


Just my 2 cents.

Gabe
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
and a well written, and well thought out 2 cents it was ! Kudos !
 
Top