If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Archbishop of Canterbury to creationists: Suck it   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 537
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

32353 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2006 at 12:15 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-03-21 12:32:16 PM  
In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.

Once again news reporting does a brilliant job of reporting the facts. What a bunch of retards.
 
2006-03-21 12:33:04 PM  
Buncha Christians have to be pissed that they're getting lumped in with the rock stupid creationists.. phew. Almost like musli...

nevermind.
 
cts
2006-03-21 12:33:24 PM  
st_gulik
we can't destroy reality...

The hell we can't!
 
2006-03-21 12:33:36 PM  
whatshisname

Mugato: If God exists then he's part of the natural universe, right?

I think that by definition, God is outside of the universe. Otherwise, he's not God, he's just some natural force that we haven't yet discovered.


Agreed. this is called the apophatic tradition, or negative theology, or via negativa... something beyond nature is 'naturally enough', beyond nature, so we can't use natural terms - i.e. ontological concepts, to refer to it.
 
2006-03-21 12:33:45 PM  
Gothnet: DEo enlighten me on his stance on homosexuality, I haven't heard that one. Is he of the "it's a sin/abomination" camp? That would be a shame 'cos he's usually a pretty reasonable fellow.

He & the rest of the Anglican church are in a `time-out/cooling off' period on the issue. They've agreed to revisit the issue in a few years.
 
2006-03-21 12:34:03 PM  
Gothnet: DEo enlighten me on his stance on homosexuality, I haven't heard that one. Is he of the "it's a sin/abomination" camp? That would be a shame 'cos he's usually a pretty reasonable fellow.

Old testemant lables it as an abomination (sorry gay people no way around justifying it), however Jesus fulfilled the old law thereby negating the need to follow Mosaic law to the letter which meant that instead of being stoned to death for your abomination sin, you could be forgiving by accepting his coming as the mesiah and repenting of your sin.

In other words.. according to new testament law it's still a no no but you can get away with a slap on the wrist if you stop and admit your wrong.

/Once again.. spent too much money on Theology courses
 
2006-03-21 12:34:10 PM  
sfl
Err, ok, not enough of a theology student to know who Bishop Spong might be or what Nicene means...
 
2006-03-21 12:35:12 PM  
It should be obvious that this story is just a clever fabrication planted by Satan to test our faith!
 
2006-03-21 12:35:17 PM  
peachykeen

Just in case you aren't joking, Ben Franklin already did that, and showed the Creationists to be wrong.


I never joke, and keep U.S. Presidents out of this.
 
2006-03-21 12:35:26 PM  
Funnay as hell, brap, but that's MIDDLE English. Old English looks even less like...well...English.

/Hwaet, we gar-dena...
 
2006-03-21 12:35:37 PM  
whatshisname

If God is reduced to a natural phenomenon, he ceases to be a God.

True. God is above science.
 
2006-03-21 12:35:46 PM  
Neither Evolution nor Creation has been physically proven. Only teaching evolution is... crap. Both should be taught, and the student should be able to make up his/her mind. The political left (most of you by what I can tell) thinks that "equality and fairness" means excluding one of two viable answers to the question of where we all came from. Hmmm...

I'm still confused on where lightning comes into play.
 
sfl
2006-03-21 12:36:29 PM  
Thing is...Theologians like Bishop Spong and the Creationists are really two sides of the same coin. They both use the Scientific Method to formulate their theories.

Religious faith depends on the belief that there are more ways of knowing that what one experiences with the senses, which is truly more open-minded than one who depends solely on the scientific method.
 
2006-03-21 12:36:40 PM  
Dr Williams said: "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.

"Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said: 'Well, how am I going to explain all this... I know: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'.


SEE?!?!? SEE?!?!? Not all us Christians are psycho whackjobs who are thoroughly intent on the elimination of science in favor of religious dogma.
 
2006-03-21 12:37:02 PM  
It is good to see some people steering away from blindingly absurd fanatism.
 
2006-03-21 12:37:05 PM  
oldfarthenry

That's right, I remember hearing about it on the radio now, a whole shiatstorm was stirred up by the US bishop and they decided just to play it cool for a while because some parts of the church were threatening a split if any of the rest openly came out in support of gay clergy.
 
2006-03-21 12:37:52 PM  
WayneKerr: I never joke, and keep U.S. Presidents out of this.


Ben Franklin was POTUS??...........
I think you need to check your list dude.....
 
2006-03-21 12:37:53 PM  
Rib: elchip, you really do not have to explain jokes other people make.
No really you don't.


Sorry. I thought it could have been an honest mistake, given that most Americans aren't aware of Cadbury's dark and expansive reach (outside of those lovely creme eggs).

I doubt most of us would know that Cadbury makes:

7up
A&W
Canada Dry
RC Cola
Dr. Pepper
Diet Rite
Hawaiian Punch
IBC
Mott's
Snapple
Squirt
Sundrop
Sunkist
Welch's
Yoo-Hoo
Bubbilicious
Chiclets
Cinnaburst
Dentyne
Trident
Certs
Halls
Sour Patch Kids
Swedish Fish
 
2006-03-21 12:38:02 PM  
a religious/scientific discussion that, for the most part, has been civil and level headed?


am I on the right website?
 
2006-03-21 12:38:18 PM  
mem322: Neither Evolution nor Creation has been physically proven.

I think you meant to say

"There is abundant evidence for evolution - so much so that evolution is regarded as fact. There is no evidence for creationism. It remains in the realm of faith"
 
2006-03-21 12:39:14 PM  
Anyone else have a hankerin' for spaghetti and meatballs?
 
2006-03-21 12:39:26 PM  
Submitter oversimplified the Archbishop's position--read his comments again please.

Beyond that, the Archbishop of Canterbury won this thread before it even started.

--h
 
2006-03-21 12:39:33 PM  
mem322: Neither Evolution nor Creation has been physically proven.

Wrong try again.

For example see, drug resistant bacteria, fruit fly speciation, and various other examples of observed and repeatable in an experiment evolution.

That is unless you have some never before heard of experiement that presents evidence of your God hypothesis.
 
2006-03-21 12:39:35 PM  
That's my dawg!

/Whiskeypalian. (Church of England)
//and a creationist
 
2006-03-21 12:39:44 PM  
Darwin believed (and stated, in words I cannot remember and am too lazy to look up) that all things came from the Creator, then evolved. So stop arguing.

Of course, I'm not as devout as Darwin was, so I hope he puts in a good word for me in Monkey-Man heaven.

/lightning?
 
2006-03-21 12:39:45 PM  
NeuroPunk91: Ben Franklin was POTUS??...........
I think you need to check your list dude.....


If he wasn't joking... it might be an honest mistake, given that he and Alexander Hamilton are on currency... I don't think any other non-presidents are on currency in wide use.
 
2006-03-21 12:39:53 PM  
elchip-
They're pretty much Catholic Church - Pope + Divorce.


Redundant?
 
2006-03-21 12:40:25 PM  
Don't let these guys hear:

www.zaputa.com
 
2006-03-21 12:40:27 PM  
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

-Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)

\All I got
\\Think the whole thing is silly
\\\except the cadbury eggs...mmmmm...cadbury
 
2006-03-21 12:40:45 PM  
mem322

please RTFA, this is a very senior protestant figure saying (AFAICT) "the two are not incompatible" because they do not operate in the same sphere. The creation account is not science and does not occupy the same domain. Something that most christians have been saying for years (including the last Pope).

Whether you believe in god or not, ID and creationism is not good science and is not supported by the majority of the christian world.
 
2006-03-21 12:41:26 PM  
mem322

Neither Evolution nor Creation has been physically proven. Only teaching evolution is... crap. Both should be taught, and the student should be able to make up his/her mind. The political left (most of you by what I can tell) thinks that "equality and fairness" means excluding one of two viable answers to the question of where we all came from. Hmmm...

Apparently someone doesn't understand the word "science."

And evolution is an observed natural phenomenon, so it's well proven. What has not been proven is the "theory of evolution," i.e., why/how it happens. Gets your facts straight.
 
2006-03-21 12:41:33 PM  
elchip: LineNoise: I would also like to thank the Archbishop for his delicious fake egg yolk filled chocolate eggs. They really should sell them outside of the easter season.

That would be Cadbury.



No shiat suckwad. Twas a joke me thinks.
 
2006-03-21 12:41:33 PM  
We could end all this debate if the closed-minded scientists would just go watch a lightning storm.

Because electrical charges in the atmosphere of the earth can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural power, right?

/Oh look, God got bored and decided to make some pretty lights for us.
 
sfl
2006-03-21 12:41:54 PM  
Gothnet

Bishop Spong is a "liberal" who pretty much doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus or his divinity...and is pretty liberal on every other issue.

That's a very simplistic way of putting it, however, but easier to understand if you aren't a theology student.
 
2006-03-21 12:43:18 PM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Wrong try again.

For example see, drug resistant bacteria, fruit fly speciation, and various other examples of observed and repeatable in an experiment evolution.

That is unless you have some never before heard of experiement that presents evidence of your God hypothesis.


Yeah, but that's microevolution. Nobody doubts that.

Many people have a problem with macroevolution, you know... that amoeba living billions of years ago eventually evolved into things with arms, legs, fingers, toes, hands, feet, brains, eyes, noses, teeth, stomachs, tongues, intestines, livers, kidneys, pancrea, gall pladders, skeletal systems, lungs, hearts, etc.

And feel free to call me naive or stupid or whatever (since most Farkers are not religious) but I think macroevolution is so amazingly complicated that it's hard to rule out divine guidance.
 
2006-03-21 12:43:33 PM  
Sorry mem322 but science is not about being fair and creationism has nothing to do with science.
 
2006-03-21 12:43:42 PM  
NeuroPunk91

Ben Franklin was POTUS??...........


Now, that's not nice calling him names, and all.


I think you need to check your list dude.....


I'm checkin' my list
Making it twice
Gonna find out who's
Trolling's so nice
WayneKerr Troll is
Trolling you 'round
 
2006-03-21 12:44:16 PM  
Contrabulous Flabtraption: No shiat suckwad. Twas a joke me thinks.

Probably. Please see my post at 2006-03-21 12:37:53 PM.
 
sfl
2006-03-21 12:44:34 PM  
To further clarify what I've been blathering about...

Someone like Spong would use the Scientific Method to disprove Jesus' resurrection and call it a 'myth'. A fundamentalist/creationist would try to use the Scientific Method to prove it.

Two sides of the same coin. The Scientific Method is but one way of knowing and it doesn't really apply to religious knowing.
 
DuX
2006-03-21 12:44:38 PM  
Quoth brap
The Archbishop actually said:

"Whan April with his shoures soote,
The creationiste mayeth suck me man-roote."



Well said sir! Well said indeed!

/Snicker
//Golf clap
///Slashiaty slash-slash
 
2006-03-21 12:44:39 PM  
elchip

macroevolution == microevolution + time

The distinction is erroneous
 
2006-03-21 12:45:09 PM  
mem322: Both should be taught, and the student should be able to make up his/her mind.

First of all, creation isn't science and has no place in science class.

Second, What does "both" mean? There are hundreds of different versions of creationism. Oh, you meant the Judeo/Christian version? Well isn't that special.
 
2006-03-21 12:45:38 PM  
It's ironic you can get banned for trolling in a thread, yet if you troll in the headline, then you get greenlighted... hmmm
 
2006-03-21 12:45:47 PM  
elchip: Contrabulous Flabtraption: No shiat suckwad. Twas a joke me thinks.

Probably. Please see my post at 2006-03-21 12:37:53 PM.



Yeah I saw it after I posted. Still, you deserve the chastising.
 
2006-03-21 12:45:58 PM  
What the diehard creationists always forget, or misrepresent about science, God and evolution is that entire atheism thing...

OK, there are a lot of scientists that are atheists. Then again, there are also a lot of scientists that are religious, yet refuse to allow their faith to interfere with the observation of the natural world.

That's the point creationsist and anti-science buttheads don't get. Science itself is ambivalent about the existence of God. It choses only to observe the world we can see and experience and the mechanisms that form the inner workings of that universe.

Therefore, it is absurd to say that the continued scientific investigation of our universe leads to atheism. What leads to atheism is butthole religious radicals who continue to define the "chosen" and the "righteous" through murder, bigotry, war, etc.

The religious radicals chase people away by assuming they have the lock, the sole authority on conversing with God. The notion that they alone have the answers to the universe by conversing with God. Unfortunately, that's also what attracts the stupid.

/throws self on double-edge sword of radicalism
//OUCH!
///quit-it.
 
2006-03-21 12:46:01 PM  
so much for thinking for ourselves....

to the close minded scaredy cats... SUCK IT!
 
2006-03-21 12:46:15 PM  
oh, btw, because I posted the above comment, I'll see ya in a few days after my ban! :)
 
sfl
2006-03-21 12:46:21 PM  
You can get banned for trolling in a thread? I thought that was what Fark was about!
 
2006-03-21 12:47:11 PM  
people who say "Evolution hasn't been proven!" are as dumb as they come. "Evolution is Fact AND Theory" is a good place to freaking start for these lice-pickers.

Hint; If you can WATCH SOMETHING HAPPEN, IT'S PROVEN. Jackass.
 
2006-03-21 12:47:12 PM  
sfl

Aaah, thanks, I get it now. Yes, the application of science to religion is both limiting and ultimately a waste of time.

/thinks all religion is a waste of time but has no problem with people that keep it away from scientific endeavor
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report