Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Telegraph)   The Vatican officially endorses Darwinism, forcing "Intelligent Design" advocates to find their tinfoil skullcaps to keep the scientific brainwaves out   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 699
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

25665 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2009 at 11:31 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



699 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-02-12 01:24:20 AM  
650 posts into the thread and nobody has even mentioned me? I would be hurt, if I wasn't an evil-atheist who has no feelings! :-)

Happy Darwin Day, everybody!

cthellis, ninjakirby, KiltedBastich, abb3w, entropic_existence and Kome, in particular, and yes, even I drunk what have my special thanks. We may not all agree, but the debates are what make Fark interesting, after all!



(Bevis and butthead can go fark themselves- You are lying, useless douchebag scum, trolls and you have lost, get over it. Or don't. Nobody cares what you think. Just go away.)
 
2009-02-12 01:32:42 AM  
luidprand: "Not really, from a practical standpoint. It's a weird and vain assumption, but it doesn't deny genetic drift, GM foods, the whole fossil record and the lot. You can be an evolutionary biologist and be good at it, and yet still have the stated exception. I wouldn't want them touching anthropology, myself."

Selective acceptance of evolution does not constitute acceptance proper.

luidprand: "Exactly. And they would. I've gotten into this debate many times in my life, with literally hundreds of people (I'm an annoying git, if you can't tell) and the prevalence of the people who have no problem with evolution except when it comes to humans is, to me, astounding. I've encountered people of all religious stripes, from atheist (it was a bizarre theory involving aliens) to the occasional Zorastrian, who believe in it. I recognize that as anecdotal evidence, but there is plenty of available documentation showing Special Creation, Theistic Evolution, and its ilk as being dogma in many belief systems."

Your anecdotes and speculation aside, why on earth would a theistic evolutionist answer no to a phrasing that accurately describes their beliefs? I don't buy that they would opt for denial rather than answer yes in spite of mild dissatisfaction with the wording, not judging by the way they hate to be lumped in with the fundies.

luidprand: "But I'm not denying the results - I'm applying them properly. If you have experience in polling or market research, you know what I mean. The answers can only apply to the question(s) asked - all else is inference. Your numbers may be accurate - but that's why I asked for more evidence, because the poll is not sufficient to judge the beliefs of the populace on evolution as a whole, especially because there are half-assed theories that are very popular."

"Applying them properly" translates to "denying the results and rationalizing it with anecdotes and speculation about the motives and mindsets of those polled", so far as I can tell. As I mentioned before, selective acceptance of evolution does not constitute acceptance proper.

luidprand: "A perfect example of a similar problem. I was part of a poll recently that asked (among many other questions) about how long it would take for green energy to be sufficient to provide the majority of power for the US. The answer depends on what "green energy" is defined as - something the pollster didn't know. If it's solar and wind, the answer is one thing (never) - if nuclear is included, its still at least 30 years (which wasn't even a possible answer). This poll suffers from the same failure - the intent (Do you accept evolution?) does not match the question."

And yet, "Do you accept evolution?" would have been a far more loaded question. Theistic evolution? The evolution of human beings, or just non-human animals? The pertinent aspect was the evolution of humans as that's the point of theological contention and thus that's what is most relevant. The wording was actually quite well thought out, it's just that when confronted with polling results that don't match ones preconcieved notions, the question phrasing is the first thing that the denialist thinks to attack. "Ah well, the results don't really say what they appear to because in my opinion this is what those polled were thinking, and why they might've objected to the phrasing of the question". Great, but isn't that inference? Isn't human evolution the relevant issue anyway?

luidprand: "No, it doesn't square with the data, because the data in the poll does not address the desired question. The data I pulled out is slightly more relevant, in that it is possible to discover who adheres to what system and what each system adheres to, and the transitive property can be used. A parallel - you can find out how many Democrats there are, you can find out that an article of the Democratic belief is pro-union, and therefore you can get a rough guess of how many people will tend towards being pro-labor."

But human origins is central to the entire debate. In what sense isn't their question the 'desired' one?
 
2009-02-12 02:05:35 AM  
I'll consider believing in creationism when all churches open up their accounting books for public access.

Until then, I can't take any advertisment or claimed motive of theirs at face value, so I have to fall back onto observable facts. That only leaves evolution.
 
2009-02-12 02:37:17 AM  
koder: I'll consider believing in creationism when all churches open up their accounting books for public access.

Until then, I can't take any advertisment or claimed motive of theirs at face value, so I have to fall back onto observable facts. That only leaves evolution.


Agreed about church record keeping. As for evolution, I have my doubts......

Language in junk DNA
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm?site=science/great m omentsinscience

"According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law. It's a really weird law, but it's not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book. You might find that the number one most popular word is "the" (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word "a" (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be "elephant", and which appears just once.

Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from "1" for "the", and "2" for "a", right down "1,000" for "elephant". The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of "the", then 1,800 appearances of "a", down to one appearance of "elephant".

If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).

So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into "words" each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for "words" 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long. They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages! "
 
2009-02-12 03:01:43 AM  
FloydA: We may not all agree, but the debates are what make Fark interesting, after all!

Screw you, hippie! How'ja like THAT debate?!?
 
2009-02-12 03:02:36 AM  
Wait a tick...

Vatican
img19.imageshack.us

Empire


/hmmmmm
 
2009-02-12 03:04:30 AM  
dammit.

Compared

blogs.starwars.com
 
2009-02-12 03:55:16 AM  
try again....

img8.imageshack.us

oh, and that isn't a Jewish symbol.

666 - Part 3 : Rephan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cGBKuuTOyQ
 
2009-02-12 04:09:38 AM  
Oh, hey, my post about Catholic sun symbols has been deleted. I'm sure it's a coincidence. I'll just put it back up.

img13.imageshack.usTraditional birthplace of Christ

img22.imageshack.usTraditional spot of the Crucifixion, Church of the Holy Sepulchre

img13.imageshack.us

img9.imageshack.usLet's throw in Notre Dame while I'm at it

img25.imageshack.usAnd this is supposed to be a statue of Mary, known to Catholics as The Queen of Heaven, a designation that she apparently shares with Ashtaroth, also known as Ishtar. You remember her:

Judg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

Hey, Baal uses a variation on that cross symbol of Shammash, and it symbolizes exactly the same thing. Wonder if it's connected.
 
2009-02-12 04:14:11 AM  
I'll say it AGAIN,the Catholic Church is just the most recent version of the same sun cult going all the way back to Babylon and Egypt. They have you dupes engaging in worship of pagan sun gods using idols(saints). If making a wish to a statue isn't the simplest definition ever for idolatry, I'd be very surprised.
 
2009-02-12 04:51:00 AM  
Jarhead_h, you sound like you're a Protestant who hates Catholics.
 
2009-02-12 05:23:29 AM  
PyroStock: Jarhead_h, you sound like you're a Protestant who hates Catholics math

dube.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-02-12 05:58:24 AM  
Jarhead_h: I'll say it AGAIN,the Catholic Church is just the most recent version of the same sun cult going all the way back to Babylon and Egypt. They have you dupes engaging in worship of pagan sun gods using idols(saints). If making a wish to a statue isn't the simplest definition ever for idolatry, I'd be very surprised.

Wow....just wow...

// mmm... where do you think protestantism came from?
 
2009-02-12 06:58:15 AM  
Jeff73: HeartBurnKid: HowAboutNo: Microevolution = yes
Macroevolution = no

How cute, you think there's a difference.

How cute, you don't know what either word means, nor that there is in fact a difference.


Typically, idiots use the first to mean the appearance of new phenotypes not resulting in speciation and the latter to mean divergence large enough to result in speciation, the only really significant meaning of either is that the speaker is an idiot, though.

//Or, alternately, trying to talk down to an idiot

Jarhead_h:
If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese!


You realize that if you cut out the middle steps, you're just matching the list [1,2,3...] to another ascending list of counting number.... you know what? It's not worth it. I'm not even going to try anymore. fark you, I'm taking more cough medicine and going back to bed.
 
2009-02-12 07:20:08 AM  
1
 
2009-02-12 07:29:55 AM  
i326.photobucket.com


666 FTW!
 
2009-02-12 08:50:30 AM  
Zamboro: Imagine a spectrum that ranges from relative irrationality to relative rationality, from intense religiosity to atheism.

To be fair, while those spectra aren't completely orthogonal, they also aren't colinear.

luidprand: "While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say."

Yes, there are branches within the Protestants. Guess where Biblical Inerrancy tends to be concentrated?

religions.pewforum.org
religions.pewforum.org

luidprand: Admittedly, there will be some in a major religion (such as some Jews and Catholics) that deny evolution, even if it is part of the dogma,

Evolution is not part of the dogma; it is merely accepted as generally compatible with it.

Jarhead_h: According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law.

Zipf's law now refers more generally to frequency distributions of "rank data," in which the relative frequency of the nth-ranked item is given by the Zeta distribution[...] - Wikipedia

Mildly interesting. It would be more interesting if we knew why human languages obey Zipf's law, but still mildly interesting.

Jim_Callahan: You realize that if you cut out the middle steps, you're just matching the list [1,2,3...] to another ascending list of counting number.... you know what?

No, it's a bit more than that; the data gives a straight linear fit on a log-log graph of frequency to position.
 
2009-02-12 08:59:43 AM  
Jarhead_h: Language in junk DNA
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm?site=science/great m omentsinscience

"According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law. It's a really weird law, but it's not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book. You might find that the number one most popular word is "the" (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word "a" (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be "elephant", and which appears just once.

Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from "1" for "the", and "2" for "a", right down "1,000" for "elephant". The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of "the", then 1,800 appearances of "a", down to one appearance of "elephant".

If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).

So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into "words" each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for "words" 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long. They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages! "


What a load of Whargarbbl. I'm still trying to track down the actual research supposedly carried out. Right now all references online I find to it are back to that abc.au page you linked. Not bodding well so far.

And nevermind that the article in question horribly misuses terms like Junk DNA, give an incorrect definition of Introns, and generally looks like it was written by someone with no clue of genetics trying to convey information that was explained to them by someone that didn't know anything about genetics either.

I'll also point out that according to this paper (pdf, pops) Randomly generated texts also seem to demonstrate Zipf's Law-like distributions of words so if you did that with random DNA sequences, or nearly random sequences (ones not under selection for instance) it wouldn't be a shock for it to follow a Zipf's Law-liek distribution.

Looking through Professor Simon J. Shepherds research interests it looks like he may have donme some interesting Information Theory type work on the Human Genome, mostly looks like he is doing work to try and develop algorithms for "word finding", aka gene hunting, looking for binding sites, regulatory elements, etc.

In short I think the snippet you posted, and all of the traces I can find of it online are poor interpretations of his work by people who well, don;t know what the hell they are talking about.
 
2009-02-12 09:33:13 AM  
entropic_existence: I'll also point out that according to this paper (pdf, pops)

Errr... no it doesn't...
 
2009-02-12 09:55:53 AM  
abb3w: No, it's a bit more than that; the data gives a straight linear fit on a log-log graph of frequency to position.

Which means that the 1st ranked item occurs about twice as frequently to the 2nd ranked item and so on down the list. It became somewhat less interesting when I saw that randomly generated texts also get close fites to Zipf's Law distributions and that Zipf's Law distributions fall within the broader category of Power Law distributions, which basically occur in everything in the Unvierse.

You can take almost any data and fit it to a Power Law.
 
2009-02-12 09:57:22 AM  
http://www.nslij-genetics.org/wli/pub/ieee92_pre.pdf
 
2009-02-12 10:33:33 AM  
entropic_existence: Which means that the 1st ranked item occurs about twice as frequently to the 2nd ranked item and so on down the list.

For some value of "twice". =)

entropic_existence: You can take almost any data and fit it to a Power Law.

"If you plot it on a log-log graph, even an elephant will become a straight line." - observation by one of my professors back from my MechE days
 
2009-02-12 10:43:36 AM  
entropic_existence:

What a load of Whargarbbl. I'm still trying to track down the actual research supposedly carried out. Right now all references online I find to it are back to that abc.au page you linked. Not bodding well so far.


Even if it isn't Whargarbbl, it's not surprising. Many things in nature tend to be ordered on logical rules, such as the Logarithmic spiral. Function from the smallest molecules to complete structures of plants and even humans. I don't see why language wouldn't also follow or be based on the same logical rules.

It's due to chemistry and ma thematic constants.
 
2009-02-12 11:22:20 AM  
entropic_existence: You can take almost any data and fit it to a Power Law.

What about having 400 babies?
 
2009-02-12 11:35:29 AM  
Murkanen: rodeofrog: Ahem. My uncle taught evolution for 40 years - at Brigham Young University.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.


It is relevant to a suggestion that mormons refuse to acknowledge evolution as a valid theory. BYU has fired many teachers who teach subjects that do not align with the teachings of the mormon church. They celebrated my uncle (and Dinosaur Jim, for that matter).
 
2009-02-12 12:21:34 PM  
cthellis: FloydA: We may not all agree, but the debates are what make Fark interesting, after all!

Screw you, hippie! How'ja like THAT debate?!?


Well...according to Darwin, screwing is a necessary step in our evolution, but in this particular case, although I am quite flattered, I'm afraid it won't work. ;-P
 
2009-02-12 12:22:44 PM  
HowAboutNo: Microevolution = yes
Macroevolution = no


How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile?
 
2009-02-12 12:33:03 PM  
FloydA: HowAboutNo: Microevolution = yes
Macroevolution = no

How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile?


83.
 
2009-02-12 12:54:47 PM  
FloydA: Well...according to Darwin, screwing is a necessary step in our evolution, but in this particular case, although I am quite flattered, I'm afraid it won't work. ;-P

Just takes one beer + C16H12FN3O3
 
2009-02-12 01:07:54 PM  
PyroStock: Jarhead_h, you sound like you're a Protestant who hates Catholics.

Yes, I hate Catholics. I hate them so much that I'm trying to warn them. Idiot.

I'm trying to tell them that they have been lied to and used for over a millennium by the newest denomination of Sol Invictus, the Roman sun cult that Constantine belonged to, which itself was just a denomination of the Babylonian Mystery Schools(remember those from Western Civ?).

Catholics are currently being mislead by a man so ridiculously evil looking that he has his own internet meme comparing him to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, and who's trust in being the "lord's vicar on earth" is so complete that he'll only go out in public if he's being driven around in a giant lexan fish bowl.

ROME IS LYING TO YOU.
 
2009-02-12 01:11:23 PM  
Jarhead_h: ROME IS LYING TO YOU.

What makes you think they don't know?

Some of us like to be lied to.
/mormon
//wearing magic underwear right now.
 
2009-02-12 01:18:55 PM  
Jarhead_h: Yes, I hate Catholics. I hate them so much that I'm trying to warn them. Idiot.

I like quotes like this.

But I am always puzzled when people like me are called "haters"
 
2009-02-12 01:52:23 PM  
A good start, both in terms of Christian sects endorsing scientific explanations and the Catholic Church trying not to be so backwards, but it won't much matter in the U.S.

My wife and I moved to west Michigan about six months ago, and it's creepy here. Some of her (college) students think Christianity started with Martin Luther-to them, Catholics aren't Christians. I'm pretty sure they don't even know what Orthodoxy is, and equally sure they wouldn't think it's Christianity.
 
2009-02-12 02:18:39 PM  
rodeofrog: Murkanen: rodeofrog: Ahem. My uncle taught evolution for 40 years - at Brigham Young University.

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

It is relevant to a suggestion that mormons refuse to acknowledge evolution as a valid theory. BYU has fired many teachers who teach subjects that do not align with the teachings of the mormon church. They celebrated my uncle (and Dinosaur Jim, for that matter).


Mormons have pretty much always accepted evolution correct? At least I recall hearing that. It's one of the other reasons why the Evangelical, Fundamentalist Protestant Denominations don't think the Mormons are "real Christians".

I may have a lot of problems with the Mormons, particularly the FLDS, but their acceptance of evolution, and science in general, isn't one of them.

Jarhead_h: Yes, I hate Catholics. I hate them so much that I'm trying to warn them. Idiot.

I'm trying to tell them that they have been lied to and used for over a millennium by the newest denomination of Sol Invictus, the Roman sun cult that Constantine belonged to, which itself was just a denomination of the Babylonian Mystery Schools(remember those from Western Civ?).

Catholics are currently being mislead by a man so ridiculously evil looking that he has his own internet meme comparing him to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, and who's trust in being the "lord's vicar on earth" is so complete that he'll only go out in public if he's being driven around in a giant lexan fish bowl.

ROME IS LYING TO YOU.


Uh huh, so it's all a grand conspiracy huh? And all high ranking Catholic clergy are in on the deal and yet despite the centuries of internal political fighting no one spilled the beans? Sure...

OR the simpler explanation would be that the Catholic Church, being at one time essentially the only church, used to adopt some of the symbols and rites (modified to Christian themes) of the pagans they were trying to convert in order to make it more attractive to them.

And hell if the Catholic Church was really just a continuation of the Sol Invictus cult then I say power to them. Hell it would make me like them more.

Or you could just be completely insane. Somehow I think that more likely. Next thing you know you'll be ranting about the greys, lizard people, time cube, or illuminati.
 
2009-02-12 02:38:37 PM  
On the other hand, I had a Catholic priest insist to me that to this very day, male humans have one less rib than females (being inherited from Adam). I just had to stare at him. I thought to myself, surely Catholic hospitals have noticed real rib counts somewhere along the way.... in other words, there are the backwards folks among us, in every group.
 
2009-02-12 04:09:41 PM  
Jarhead_h: PyroStock: Jarhead_h, you sound like you're a Protestant who hates Catholics.

Yes, I hate Catholics. I hate them so much that I'm trying to warn them. Idiot.

I'm trying to tell them that they have been lied to and used for over a millennium by the newest denomination of Sol Invictus, the Roman sun cult that Constantine belonged to, which itself was just a denomination of the Babylonian Mystery Schools(remember those from Western Civ?).

Catholics are currently being mislead by a man so ridiculously evil looking that he has his own internet meme comparing him to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, and who's trust in being the "lord's vicar on earth" is so complete that he'll only go out in public if he's being driven around in a giant lexan fish bowl.

ROME IS LYING TO YOU.



4/10. I had you at a 6 but you lost points for ALL CAPS. However, you did score extra for including both Star Wars and the Babylonian Mystery Schools in the same post.
 
2009-02-12 04:10:51 PM  
fromafar: On the other hand, I had a Catholic priest insist to me that to this very day, male humans have one less rib than females (being inherited from Adam). I just had to stare at him. I thought to myself, surely Catholic hospitals have noticed real rib counts somewhere along the way.... in other words, there are the backwards folks among us, in every group."

I dunno, really? It's awfully easy to dismiss them as "backwards", falling back on the folk wisdom "there's crazies in every group". But should we delibrately ignore that his beliefs flow directly from scripture? You're calling him backwards because he believes in more of the Bible than you do. Is it really best to just write him off as crazy so that we can stop thinking about it, instead of continuing on to consider how religion affects us psychologically, how it might foster irrational beliefs in otherwise rational people?

I think I'd rather study the matter more in depth rather than relying on catchy, ecumenical sayings that don't account for the different proportions of crazies that exist in various groups, that some seem to have the lion's share while other groups have very few. Why is that? Isn't it worth asking, worth looking into?
 
2009-02-12 04:44:46 PM  
Jarhead_h:Catholics are currently being mislead by a man so ridiculously evil looking that he has his own internet meme comparing him to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars

I agree, it's as if they don't consider how attractive someone is at all! And can anyone prove he's not a Sith Lord from a galaxy far far away?
 
2009-02-12 05:17:20 PM  
clambam: The Fundamentalist issue with evolution makes perfect sense within the context of their theology. If evolution is a fact, only three conclusions can be drawn about the nature of God:

1. He doesn't exist.
2. He is imperfect (in that He set a process in motion the outcome of which He did not anticipate, or only envisioned in general terms).
3. He is a Prime Mover who set up the initial conditions of the universe in such a way that humans would inevitably evolve.


No. 1 is obviously unacceptable. No. 2 undermines the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God. No. 3 denies the existence of free will, and therefore contradicts the whole personal choice/accept Jesus into your heart basis to Fundamentalist theology.

The Catholic response seems to be "The Church says evolution is OK, so evolution is OK. Take it on faith, don't think about it too much and don't worry about it." The Catholics don't have ther same problem with predestination that Protestants do.

Personally, I opt for No. 2.


Actually, number 3 seems to be an argument in support of free will. God creates the universe such that humans will come to be, then he sits back and watches, allowing us to do what we will.... With our free will.

Also in my opinion the problem with fundamentalists, and actually most Christians, is that they DON'T believe in free will. Almost every Christian I know regularly says things that happen are "God's will". WTF? Sure, they pay lip-service to the idea of free will in church, but whenever the shiat hits the fan they deny responsibility for what happened by blaming it on god, even though that is entirely incongruent with the idea of free will.

It is your OWN FAULT you lost your job because you were a lazy fark. It was NOT because that was part of GOD's plan for your life. God has NO plan for your life, he knows what will HAPPEN in your life, but that doesn't mean he PLANNED it, it just means he is aware of it.

Same thing applies to those radicals that don't believe in medical treatment. If god gave us free will, then he gave us the freedom to create new medicines and treatments for our illnesses. If he didn't want you to have good medical care he would have had you be born 500 years ago.

Freaking fundies rattle my brain with the constant contradictions in their stated beliefs and their actual beliefs.

/catholic
//thank god ;)
///cause its about the most sane religion around.
 
2009-02-12 05:46:18 PM  
fromafar: On the other hand, I had a Catholic priest insist to me that to this very day, male humans have one less rib than females (being inherited from Adam). I just had to stare at him. I thought to myself, surely Catholic hospitals have noticed real rib counts somewhere along the way.... in other words, there are the backwards folks among us, in every group.

That suggests he has a very Lamarckian notion of how evolution works.

Ask him if he inherited any of his father's tattoos or his mom's pierced ears.
 
2009-02-12 05:50:54 PM  
arentol: "It was NOT because that was part of GOD's plan for your life."

Of course.

arentol: "God has NO plan for your life"

Still with you, you're right...

arentol: " ....knows what will HAPPEN in your life, but that doesn't mean he PLANNED it, it just means he is aware of it."

No he isn't, because he's not real. It's like saying "Zeus doesn't interfere with out lives" (true) "...he merely knows what we will do ahead of time" (false, he's not real.)

arentol: "Freaking fundies rattle my brain with the constant contradictions in their stated beliefs and their actual beliefs."

Well not that I don't appreciate the sentiment, but realize that it's a sliding scale. The way creationists appear to you is the way you appear to an atheist. Meanwhile, you might regard an atheist as being too certain of science for beliving in abiogenesis and natural causation of the Big bang. But likewise, a creationist (being further towards faith on the scale) would regard you as being too certain of science because you accept evolution.

I like to envision it as a ladder with ten people crowded onto it. Everyone thinks the guy above him has climbed too high, and that the guy below him has now climbed high enough. Meanwhile the guy at the top is pointing out that the water's rising, while everyone below calls him an intolerant jerk for not respecting their position on the ladder. :P

arentol: "cause its about the most sane religion around."

Why, because it accepts more of science and less of the Bible? When you begin to pride your religion on being closer to atheism than the rest, it's time to make the switch. Just sayin'.

Once again, no hostility meant. Just intrigued by moderates because they have their own set of bizarre contradictions and idiosyncrasies that make them, imo, more interesting than fundies.
 
2009-02-12 05:50:58 PM  
cthellis:
Just takes one beer + C16H12FN3O3


You're such a romantic! Happy Valentines day to you too.
 
2009-02-12 06:02:53 PM  
Zamboro: The way creationists appear to you is the way you appear to an atheist.


You mean "the way he appears to some atheists" (or to one atheist in particular).

There isn't really a "standard" atheist position, since there is no such thing as a "typical" atheist.

I, for example, don't give a hoot what other people believe, as long as they do not expect special treatment (government funding or access to classrooms) on the basis of those beliefs. It strikes me as rather pointless to argue about the topic with someone, to be honest. I may think their beliefs are silly, but I know that I have some beliefs of my own that are also non-rational.
 
2009-02-12 06:26:00 PM  
FloydA: "You mean "the way he appears to some atheists" (or to one atheist in particular)."

Fair enough, I was only trying to get across the fact that rationality is not binary, it's more of a scale, although even modeling it that way wouldn't properly express degrees of inconsistency, as one can be more generally rational than another while having or or two supremely irrational beliefs.fark, now I need to graph this.
 
2009-02-12 07:04:07 PM  
FloydA: That suggests he has a very Lamarckian notion of how evolution works.

Ask him if he inherited any of his father's tattoos or his mom's pierced ears.



Because I couldn't find any pictures of a stormtrooper and Lamarck:

i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-02-12 08:05:01 PM  
The catholic church does not believe God designed and then created the universe? The pope must be using the Bible as toilet paper, cause he surely isn't reading it...
 
2009-02-12 08:38:01 PM  
tweekster: KJM315: indeed, if the guy they claim was jesus actually saw what the people who believe in the inerrancy of bible do in his name, he would probably not be too happy.

It would be fun to see him bust up a mega church.


He probably would, too. Hopefully with columns of fire and all kinds of crazy shiat.

Then at the end, he dusts himself off and says, "Who wants a beer? I'm buying... Quit looking at me like that, Drew."
 
2009-02-12 10:17:39 PM  
arentol: Actually, number 3 seems to be an argument in support of free will. God creates the universe such that humans will come to be, then he sits back and watches, allowing us to do what we will.... With our free will.

And then threatens to throw us into a lake of fire if we don't use that free will in His service.

/won't see him again 'til the 4th o' July
 
2009-02-13 03:17:12 PM  
fromafar: On the other hand, I had a Catholic priest insist to me that to this very day, male humans have one less rib than females (being inherited from Adam). I just had to stare at him. I thought to myself, surely Catholic hospitals have noticed real rib counts somewhere along the way.... in other words, there are the backwards folks among us, in every group.

Interesting, one idea is that the rib was a mistranslation of the pubic bone - a bone that *is* absent in humans whilst present in almost every other (male)mammal.
 
Displayed 49 of 699 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report