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.

(Mercury News)   FSM takes a hit when science supporters win majority on Kansas School board   (mercurynews.com) divider line 593
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

12707 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Aug 2006 at 8:22 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



593 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-02 10:17:16 AM  
Rational thought, FTW!
 
2006-08-02 10:20:24 AM  
DonutsForEver

I very much disagree with you.

Firstly, morals are certainly rational; they all exist to either keep the powerful party in charge or to keep the group alive. For instance, each of the 10 commandments either says something that makes sure that no one questions the word of God and His representatives on Earth (Moses, rabbis kinda..) or have rules that help to maintain a social cohesion (do not kill or else the social fabric will dissolve)

Secondly, faith isn't about morals. Faith is accepting something as ultimate truth for which there is no proof. For that reason, faith is irrational. That is not to say that truth needs to be rational; I dare anyone to look at Quantum Mechanics and call it rational. However, whether or not it even means anything, faith is entirely irrational.
 
2006-08-02 10:21:43 AM  
Tatsuma: Interesting halachic sidenote. While homosexuality between males is considered wrong, lesbianism is considered really not that bad.


And I think that's something we can all get behind!
 
2006-08-02 10:22:35 AM  
Addendum:

I did not mean to equate Quantum MEchanics to truth, but it does seem to be very close to it. My apologies.
 
2006-08-02 10:23:25 AM  
As a Kansan, I am SOOO glad to hear this. I was actually kicking myself b/c I didn't get off my ass and register (R) so I could vote in the primaries against the crazies, and then I couldn't complain if they won.

Also, the evolution stuff gets all the press, but there's actually much shadier things gone on. That Morris woman spent several thousand taxpayer dollars staying at a Hilton in Florida for meals and a conference that had no bearing on any schools in our state, and originally didn't provide any receipts. When pressed, she turned in hand-written receipts.

And then there's the lawyer and anti-tax and anti-public-schools activist that they hired as the state commissioner for education, completely unqualified except that he agreed with them. (As a general rule, and take note Bush Admin, if you are hiring unqualified people who agree with you, because every qualified person thinks you're wrong, you might need to consider the possibility that you are, in fact, wrong.)

And then they wanted to require that kids have a signeed permission slip before they can be told how to prevent pregnancy, as if kids who need to hear it from a schoolteacher have the kind of involved parents who return signed permission slips.

Also in this election, the moderate republican insurance commisioner beat a guy who conducted a total smear campaign against her, and if elected wanted to cut insurance coverage requirements and generally deregulate the industry entirely. That's actually even better news as far as I'm concerned.

The thing is as a working union member who is very concerned about our people, these nutjobs really scare me, and most working-class folks. They are totally dedicated to destroying the power of the state government, and splitting everything between the big corps. and the churches. And for the last decade or so, we've really been dancing close to the edge. So far, any time it's been a critical issue, we've squeaked out ahead, but every year we're playing defense, and it does scare me that one of these days they're going to win. Last year, they passed a bill to basically kill any form of worker's comp. As a firefighter, that's terrible. We can't move away, and we'd be fukked if we get hurt. Took a governor's veto to save our butts.

This next year, they're going to go after our pensions, a bunch of Wall Street types want to get their fingers into our fully-funded pension fund. They're also trying to get legislative control over course content at universities, and do away with existing environmental regulations, and kill public school funding.

Hell, the woman running for secretary of state is on record as saying that women should submit to their husbands and not be allowed to vote. She's also the only person who voted against requiring a judge to sign off on a 14-year-old marrying a 22-year-old. Her reasoning was that young teenage marriage worked out well for the Virgin Mary, so why not?

And that's the dispatches from out here in flyover country, at the Midwestern Front of the Culture Wars.
 
2006-08-02 10:23:30 AM  
kabloink: A lot of fundie churches view Catholics as a liberal religion and not a true Christian religion. For the most part, they claim Catholics are not true christians since they often do not take the bible as the literal truth. Whereas the fundies believe what is written in the bible is the absolute truth without errors.

That would have been an acceptable explanation. However he replied with Southern Baptist talking points (which is what I was almost expecting) that are so ridiculous that they're not even worht debating.

Jesus Rox: 3 gods, 1 goddess, the worship of graven images, etc.
 
SSL
2006-08-02 10:25:31 AM  
tonesskin
I saw that. I think that is really a great example of why the word "theory" needs to be there. It was almost like religion in that it is sort of impossible to prove or disprove all parts of the theory.

Sh0velMan
Before people start to spew self-righteous banter about how it can be proven and blah blah blah. Until we have faster-than-light capability and can unequivically(sp?) prove that its true, its a theory... in the same way until we have a time machine to jump back in time X number of millions of years to check for the puddle of goo we all crawled out of, its a THEORY.


I think something really needs to be cleared up here. It seems to me alot of people are confusing Theory and Hypothesis. This may be partly due to two things:

A) scientists have been really hesitant to state an absolute on anything because science is always filling in little gaps and details (e.g. theory of relativity proved Newton's laws of physics wrong, BUT Newtonian physics is still accurate as long as you're not accelerating anywhere near lightspeed, so nothing we've been able to achieve).

B) certain things are labeled Theory, when they should not be, probably only because it sounds better. String theory, for example, has not been proven. There was actually an article on Fark of all places that reported that the developers of string theory admitted that it could not be proven. The Theory of Relativity is also a similar case. Though its effects have been observed, it hasn't yet been able to be measured. A gentleman by the name of Fitzgerald said something along the lines of, you could never really measure a change in universe on the scale that is described by relativity, because when the universe bends, your measuring tools bend as well, so it comes out to be the same.

Anyways, a theory is something that can be tested, and in the process of testing, the idea in question can be proven wrong. Evolution is a theory, because the basic tenants of evolution (genetic mutation, adaptation, natural selection, etc) have been verified and are indeed testable.

On the other hand, a Law is a theory that can be described with equations or mathematics. Law of inertia, laws of thermodynamics, etc. Again, relativity refuted some of the laws of physics, but then again, relativity hasn't ben proven yet, so... *head asplode*

So when you say you don't believe in the theory of gravity, you might as well say that you don't believe in the theory of conservation of mass-energy and believe nuclear bombs don't exist because they can't work.
 
2006-08-02 10:25:36 AM  
muninsfire: ....mmmmm......Pity the poor eunuchs....all that fun to watch, and they never get to participate. Perhaps that's why they're always depicted as surly...I'd be surly, too.

which is why there was tons of lesbian sex... imagine yourself as a woman surrounded by hundreds of other women and the only male action your getting is maybe once a month if that.

Mm I like the way this thread is going.
 
2006-08-02 10:26:53 AM  
improvius
PeopleFirst



Pretty much any outside influence can effect evolution, even people.

Look at mans changing of Dogs, or even more particular the way Samurai Crab in Japan were created.
 
2006-08-02 10:28:40 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: which is why there was tons of lesbian sex... imagine yourself as a woman surrounded by hundreds of other women and the only male action your getting is maybe once a month if that.

Well, situational homosexuality is a well-known occurance...I think there've been studies about that sort of thing at single-sex universities or something like that. And everyone knows what they say about sailors.

Mm I like the way this thread is going.

Me, too. Lesbian threadjack FTW!

/I'm going to have to remember that the next time an evolution thread goes ugly...
 
2006-08-02 10:28:59 AM  
muninsfire: Belief in G-d is faith. If you prove something, one way or another, you negate faith--and thus you negate your belief. If, somehow, you were to prove that G-d exists, you would no longer believe in him--you *could* no longer believe in him, because faith relies upon no proof being available.

Furthermore, might I remind you of the words of Jesus to Thomas the apostle: [ Paraphrased ] Blessed are you who have seen, but even more blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe.


You just said that if you could see/prove God, you could no longer believe in him, then posted a quote that implies that you can believe having seen/proved God.

Which is it?
 
2006-08-02 10:29:41 AM  
muninsfire

Furthermore, if the model required the existence of the divine in order to function, would it not, if it worked perfectly, prove the existence of the divine? Or, if it didn't work, disprove the existence of the divine?

You are correct. I think that science actually points towards a God creating everything. (There will be a lot of people who disagree of course) Now the nature of that God must then be debated. Maybe a diestic God that is totally tanscendent, maybe a personal God like Christians and Jews and possibly Muslims believe in. Maybe a panthiestic God. Maybe an imperfect God. The nature of this God will change how you look at the natural world. If you believe in a perfect God then the laws of nature should have order, an imperfect God would have flaws in the laws of nature, a panthiestic God maybe be indistinguishable from no God at all.

But my problem is when people say, "I don't care if God exists, I won't think about it let me just measure the world around me." If you take that point of view you are just piling up facts that ultimately have no meaning.
 
2006-08-02 10:29:43 AM  
images.cafepress.com

If it's good enough for Homer, it's...
D'Oh!
 
2006-08-02 10:31:17 AM  
effect=affect

Duuuurrrr.

I think I hurt my brain in here at some point.
 
2006-08-02 10:31:24 AM  
I think I should clear up what a theory is and what a hypothesis is before this thread realy gets going:
Hypothesis
Theory

Science of full of theories because THE RESEARCH AND LEARNING NEVER END.
 
2006-08-02 10:33:41 AM  
PeopleFirst
But my problem is when people say, "I don't care if God exists, I won't think about it let me just measure the world around me." If you take that point of view you are just piling up facts that ultimately have no meaning.

I don't care if there is a god or not, yet I don't have any problem finding meaning in the world. How can that possibly be a problem for you?
 
2006-08-02 10:34:42 AM  
So what I never understood is... Why is it so hard for a creationist to remove the blinders for just a few moments and look at the actual science behind evolution?

I mean honestly evolution does not disproove the existence of a creation god, so why such the hostility?
 
2006-08-02 10:34:59 AM  
Echoing all, esp werekoala who called correctly about the Morris biatch.
 
2006-08-02 10:36:34 AM  
DonutsForEver: Actually, I think by definition faith is a-rational (rather than irrational). This is why, IMHO, faith is predominantly concerned with ethical behaviour - right and wrong cannot be determined through formal reason alone. (Otherwise, you could 'prove' whether abortion was right or wrong, for example)

I think that right and wrong can, to a great extent, be determined through reason. To my mind, ethics and morality are ever evolving frameworks of rules for a healthier, and therefore more productive, society. We are now at a stage where we can statistically measure the effect of a 'moral' judgement and see if it is 'right' or 'wrong'.
 
2006-08-02 10:36:41 AM  
jayday
effect=affect

Actually, I think you could get away with either one in this case, since evolution is change over time.
 
2006-08-02 10:37:20 AM  
Bonus_Eruptus: You just said that if you could see/prove God, you could no longer believe in him, then posted a quote that implies that you can believe having seen/proved God.

Which is it?


In context, Jesus is speaking to one of his apostles. He's reaffirming that faith is based on belief, not on sight.

PeopleFirst: I think that science actually points towards a God creating everything.

Now, is that your *belief*, or is that somehow *proven*?

Because, remember, you cannot prove that G-d exists or does not exist; that's necessarily an article of faith.

But my problem is when people say, "I don't care if God exists, I won't think about it let me just measure the world around me." If you take that point of view you are just piling up facts that ultimately have no meaning.

Not true. Not everyone finds 'meaning' the same way. Not everyone requires a deity to have a purpose for their life. Take, for example, researchers working on a cure for $DISEASE. They measure, they pile up their facts, and they don't care about whether G-d exists--but there's a meaning, an end to their work: a drug to cure $DISEASE.

The same principle holds true for, say, Quantum Physicists--they're researching for the purpose of research, not because G-d told them to.

You're making the assumption that the only way anything has meaning is if it's connected to the divine--and that humans are incapable of choosing their own meaning for something. That's dangerously close to negating free will, you know.
 
2006-08-02 10:37:47 AM  
Although I am saddened with this setback in the War on Christianity, those of us who know the Truth will not let this deter us from taking back the country from Liberals and the Atheists. God places tests of faith and courage in front of, behind us, below us and above us, it will be a testament to our faith and perseverance when the made up theories of man will be placed in the dustbowl of history as prayer and divine worship will, rightfully, once again dominate our lives. This is not defeat for believers, but a rallying cry to defeat the people that hate God.
 
2006-08-02 10:37:55 AM  
improvius

Because I think that is an intellectually dishonest position. It isn't seeking truth, only utility.
 
2006-08-02 10:38:01 AM  
Pity the poor eunuchs....all that fun to watch, and they never get to participate. Perhaps that's why they're always depicted as surly...I'd be surly, too.

I've never been convinced that the eunuchs went without... (story follows)

I once had a gelding that was convinced that he was a stallion. He regularly mounted and serviced our mare, and squealed challenges at a *real* stallion throughout one memorable horse show. My parents even had the vet doublecheck that he had no testicles, but he was, indeed, a gelding.

Just a very horny one.

/it's 90% mental, ya know
 
2006-08-02 10:38:11 AM  
Evolution and religion are not in conflict, really, if you start with one simple premise: God and reality/the universe are the same, and by studying how reality works, you learn how God works. Science as worship.
 
2006-08-02 10:38:26 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: So what I never understood is... Why is it so hard for a creationist to remove the blinders for just a few moments and look at the actual science behind evolution?

I mean honestly evolution does not disproove the existence of a creation god, so why such the hostility?


Dogma. Their dogma says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. Their dogma also forbids questioning their dogma.
 
2006-08-02 10:40:06 AM  
techmom: I've never been convinced that the eunuchs went without... (story follows)

I once had a gelding that was convinced that he was a stallion. He regularly mounted and serviced our mare, and squealed challenges at a *real* stallion throughout one memorable horse show. My parents even had the vet doublecheck that he had no testicles, but he was, indeed, a gelding.

Just a very horny one.

/it's 90% mental, ya know


ORLY?

Hrmmm. Wonder why they're always shown as surly, then.

Clever Neologism: Evolution and religion are not in conflict, really, if you start with one simple premise: God and reality/the universe are the same, and by studying how reality works, you learn how God works. Science as worship.

Shhhh. You're being *reasonable* again. We can't have that. You have to take an extreme here; this is Fark. We have *standards*, after all.
 
2006-08-02 10:40:10 AM  
Ever notice that when something bad happens to a devout Christian, it's just a test from God? But if something bad happens to non-believers, it's always "God's wrath".
 
2006-08-02 10:40:25 AM  
i1.tinypic.com

Now, did each day last just 24 hours like a man's day? Or was it a period of time?

Now, did God take Eve literally from Adam's rib?
 
2006-08-02 10:40:37 AM  
You see, humans are fallible. Humans are weak. We make mistakes. Humans are also afraid to die. This is the big security blanket faith offers.
 
2006-08-02 10:40:41 AM  
Let me just repeat one word that solves pretty much this entire damn debate.

Metaphor.

A lot of the Bible is obviously metaphor. Hell, Jesus did most of his teachings through the use of parables, intentionally metaphorical stories. He even explains the metaphorical aspects of a few of them. It's obviously a system well understood at that time. So why on earth do people assume that nobody before Jesus ever thought in terms of parable and metaphor?

It's completely asinine.

Just as an example, the first seven days of Genesis. If you assume literal "days", as in 24 hours, it's ridiculous and flaunts everything we've discovered scientifically. Of course, the Earth and Sun didn't exist the whole time, and since that's how we define a "day", it's rather idiotic to assume God was living in terms of 24 hour periods before this.

If you instead see the days as metaphors for eras of creation, with each becoming exponentially shorter, it comes a lot closer to how science tells us they happened. And while there are some errors, those are easily explained by the fact that people are fallible, and these stories were likely translated and retold before being written down.


The answer is that biblical literalism is stupid, because it relies on the assumption that the way people wrote it down first was wrong, and the mistakes in translation and copying are God's work to make it more accurate. While insisting that you can't change any of it any more because it's perfect as-is, despite their obvious belief that it wasn't perfect to begin with.
 
2006-08-02 10:42:03 AM  
PeopleFirst

My problem with the "time" argument is the same that naturalists have with the "God dun it" argument. Time doesn't mean life changes.

Life changes all the time, the difference between being able to tell that these changes have happened with the naked eye is another matter entirely.

Sharks have been the same for a long time. So "time" itself isn't enough.

Actually they have changed, and they've changed a lot. As food supplies shrank, the larger sharks were starved out and the smaller sharks managed to survive. There are also genetic differences as well as systemic differences that can be seen between the various sharks.

There has to be outside forces coupled with time.

I'd say that combining and recombining DNA through mating would be about all the "outside force" you need. Just because something has become adapted to its environment does not mean that it is incapable of evolving further.

IsaacM

It would take someone completely stupid to suggest that a species can't adapt. Yes, we all know about Darwin's finches and how they develeoped different beaks based on their diet. No one in their right mind (and I'll admit some religious folks aren't) would say that every speices has remained unchanged across time. This inter-species evolution is microevolution.

There is no such thing as "microevolution". See my post above as to why this term came about (hint: it wasn't from scientists).

What most religious people object to is the suggestion that those finches came from lizards which came from fish etc., the macroevolution theory that we all share a common ancestor and came from some primordial ooze.

The "we all came from goo" theory is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution puts forth no postulates, proposals, or ideas about where life came from. That being said, there is no such thing as macroevolution. I already explained all this micro/macro stuff out so I have no real wish to do so again. Besides, as RussianPooper pointed out, speciation has been proven to occur as well.

The "from goo to you by way of the zoo" theory, I call it.

Cute, wrong, but cute.

This is something that cannot be observed as easily as microevolution, so it's the more contentious aspect of evolutionary theory.

Changes over time are changes over time. How much time and the extent of those changes is what determines whether something has become a new species or not.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

You didn't really need to do it since the same argument nearly verbatim gets brought up fairly regularly, and gets shot down fairly regularly as well.

/are we all having fun yet?
//I know I am
 
2006-08-02 10:42:18 AM  
techmom: I've never been convinced that the eunuchs went without... (story follows)

Imagine being one, now you can fark all the concubines without fear of repisel because they'd never be impregnated.

Oooo just had an odd thought. Maybe the eunuchs were there to keep the ladies entertained without having to worry about siring an offspring?

.... nah I like the lesbian sex idea better.
 
2006-08-02 10:42:51 AM  
Calamitus: Jesus Rox: 3 gods, 1 goddess, ...

A foursome?



Actually, that would be a gangbang.

/Knight, jump queen!
//Pawns, jump queen!
///Everybody, jump the queen!
//Gangbang!
/It's good to be the King.
 
2006-08-02 10:43:10 AM  
Jesus Rox :
"the pope isnt a real christian."

You are retaded ... right ?
.
Answer these please.
.
Jesus was a Jew .....
Jesus had blue eyes and light brown hair ......
Jesus was white ....

.
 
2006-08-02 10:44:08 AM  
muninsfire: Dogma. Their dogma says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. Their dogma also forbids questioning their dogma.

Ahh so it's brain washing and cultism.

That explains a lot then.
 
2006-08-02 10:44:11 AM  
PeopleFirst
Because I think that is an intellectually dishonest position. It isn't seeking truth, only utility.

You seem to be of the opinion that the only possible source of meaning and truth is a divine being. That seems intellectually dishonest to me because you're assuming truth rather than actually seeking it.
 
2006-08-02 10:44:34 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: You see, humans are fallible. Humans are weak. We make mistakes. Humans are also afraid to die. This is the big security blanket faith offers.

Humans are also terrified of having to say 'I don't know'. Faith offers them freedom from ever having to do that.
 
2006-08-02 10:44:35 AM  
PeopleFirst

improvius

Because I think that is an intellectually dishonest position. It isn't seeking truth, only utility.


Not truth... utility... hmmm...

If something doesn't work, it isn't that true, is it? And if something works pretty well, it's true at least within the conditions it's working in...
 
2006-08-02 10:45:16 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: You see, humans are fallible. Humans are weak. We make mistakes. Humans are also afraid to die. This is the big security blanket faith offers.

And sadly, that's the big problem with fundamentalism--they try to view the divine as being a sort of superman--and falliable--but at the same time, perfect. This is why they get really squicky when they have their faith questioned, methinks.

IdBeCrazyIf: Imagine being one, now you can fark all the concubines without fear of repisel because they'd never be impregnated.

Hrmmm...unless you got caught, though.

Oooo just had an odd thought. Maybe the eunuchs were there to keep the ladies entertained without having to worry about siring an offspring?

I think it was more about having security who couldn't compete genetically...

.... nah I like the lesbian sex idea better.

Me, too.
 
2006-08-02 10:46:49 AM  
Natural selection, also known as microevolution, is not macroevolution. Textbooks try to use the former as proof for the latter, but there's simply no connection.

Natural selection chooses the best random samples from the available genetic data for the current conditions. For instance, sickle-cell anemia can be a plus in malaria-prone areas. This is not advancement of the species, however, it's adaptation to specific geographic conditions. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation or gain in genetic data.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, claims that species evolve and work their way up, adding to their genetic potential as they go. Macroevolution has never been observed, and can't be proven to have happened in the past. All the supposed "tweens" are either hoaxes or still alive today.

Or to put it another way, I might be able to get useful words by scrambling the first half of the alphabet at random, but I'll never get a word with z in it. Does the fact that there are words with z logically prove that a evolved to z over billions of years? You can't prove it one way or the other. Though there are excellent reasons for why the billions of years part is very unlikely.
 
2006-08-02 10:46:52 AM  
Nice to see that Jesus Rox, like many fundie Christians, is still keeping up the ignorant views on Catholicism that he was spoon-fed by his pastor. I once had a Baptist tell me, to my face, that the only reason I wasn't going to hell was because I believed in Jesus (the same person informed me, however, that the Jews are going to hell). Also had someone try and convince me that we "papists" are cannibals and that we also sacrifice babies. It's amazing the level of ignorance that is still out there in this day and age.

/Raised Catholic
//Doesn't buy into everything
///But is trying to understand, unlike many ignorant morans out there...
 
2006-08-02 10:47:42 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Ahh so it's brain washing and cultism.

That explains a lot then.


For fundamentalists, yeah. Who was who said "Give me a child up to the age of eight, and I can make them mine for life" or something like that?

PeopleFirst: Because I think that is an intellectually dishonest position. It isn't seeking truth, only utility.

When people start slinging around "intellectual dishonesty" ad-hominem accusations, it's usually a sign that they have nothing further to contribute to the debate.
 
2006-08-02 10:48:50 AM  
mtman900

Our disagreement is probably on what we mean when we say 'faith'. Anyway, a response to some things you said:

Firstly, morals are certainly rational; they all exist to either keep the powerful party in charge or to keep the group alive.

Those who institute those rules implicitly claim that
1) keeping the powerful party in charge OR
2) keeping the group alive
is itself morally justifiable. That moral justification cannot be determined through reason. Let me try putting it another way.

When I get up in the morning, I cannot sit like Descartes or Kant and figure out what reason compels me to do in the absence of any value. Let us say that I am poor. Do I steal to feed my family? I can deliberate over the choice as much as I want, but in the end, I have to assert a value (my family's health or the rule of law) that I can only do through an act of faith. What do I -believe- is the right thing to do?

Secondly, faith isn't about morals. Faith is accepting something as ultimate truth for which there is no proof.

Well, I may have faith that acting as a Christian (10 commandments, for example) is the right thing to do. There is no way to prove that not killing people, not stealing, is right or wrong, I just have faith that acting in that way is right. Is that an 'ultimate truth'? It has a different empirical ground than the truth of evolution.

I fear that is all a bit convoluted, but let give you this: show me someone who appears to act on reason alone and I will show you that their actions are grounded in values, or axioms if you will, that are themselves a-rational, that are the 'stuff' of faith. Bah. I wish I could explain my position better. Let me know what ain't clear and I'll explain or muddle it up more.

MinkeyMan
To my mind, ethics and morality are ever evolving frameworks of rules for a healthier, and therefore more productive, society.

How do you know that a healthy and productive society is moral? Just because it is obvious or valued doesn't mean that it is derived through science or reason. It has to be taken on faith.

We are now at a stage where we can statistically measure the effect of a 'moral' judgement and see if it is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Could you give me even one example?

/a civil discussion of faith and reason
//sweet
/// is Fark broken or something?
 
2006-08-02 10:49:46 AM  
Excellent, this time I appear to not have come to the thread late
 
2006-08-02 10:50:00 AM  
muninsfire

Shhhh. You're being *reasonable* again. We can't have that. You have to take an extreme here; this is Fark. We have *standards*, after all.


Oh, right I forgot..

Stupid Christians with their fairy tale zombie jew-on-a-stick son of a sky wizard. Go back to your snake-handling, speaking in tongues, and faith-healing swindlers.
 
2006-08-02 10:50:03 AM  
There is no such distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, there is just evolution.

This is a Jack Chick-ian false premise.
 
2006-08-02 10:50:11 AM  
j0ndas: All the supposed "tweens" are either hoaxes or still alive today.

Besides all your terms being completely wrong, and also this statement being untrue, might I note that there is nothing in Darwin's theories that insists that a predecessor of a certain species become extinct?

SilentBob583: Also had someone try and convince me that we "papists" are cannibals and that we also sacrifice babies. It's amazing the level of ignorance that is still out there in this day and age.

You always need a scapegoat.
 
2006-08-02 10:51:47 AM  
muninsfire: For fundamentalists, yeah. Who was who said "Give me a child up to the age of eight, and I can make them mine for life" or something like that?

I remember the quote but can't place a name to it at the moment and teh google fu does nothing for me.

It's a real shame though, I wonder how many fresh bright young minds of the countless generations were snuffed out before their prime due to conditioning early in childhood.
 
2006-08-02 10:52:08 AM  
Rational thought, FTW!

I Kant agree with that.
 
Displayed 50 of 593 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report