US thinks Darwin was wrong.
Discussion
Thelemming said:
Intelligent Design cannot be disproved, is not a scientific theory - simply a statement that "we dont know what happened so god did it". The only difference between "ID" and creationism is the substitution of "some supernatural entity" for God.
Yes it can be disproved. If the universe is far too complicated to have evolved, and was created by a supreme being to be perfect; why do men have nipples?
Frightening but true. I hate the word "supernatural" (meaning, I guess, "above" or "beyond" natural). If somethings exists, it is natural; if it doesn't, it's a fiction. Religion, to me, is about "faith" in the fictitious. (Or, being more charitable, faith that something we don't understand and/or can't show real evidence for will ultimately prove to be "natural"
jimbeaux said:I have to say I felt slightly uncomfortable about posting that in particular, but I felt it did support my argument. I have absolutely no wish to offend anyone who was affected in any way by what was obviously an atrocity committed by extremists, any apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. 9/11 was absolutely not a rational response to any degree of provocation, but the point was to illustrate the depth of feeling engendered in some [extremists] to the threat they perceive the US to be.
might lead to less anti-American extremism in the world? I don't think people fly jets into tower blocks simply because they object to McDonalds franchises.
Victor; good post sir, except when you refer to any US religious person as a "fanatic" or "extreme" and, above, you mention "people flying jets into towers" as if they have a rational thing going. How about labeling them the same way. Fair enough?
Oh, and I don't think I referred to any US religious person as being a fanatic or extreme, or if I did it wasn't intentional. I am an Athiest myself, but have no problem at all with people being religious. Some of my best friends are Gideons. And I like America, and have visited many times, and probably will do so again.
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Sunday 13th November 23:22
ErnestM said:ErnestM, point taken, I only know what I glean from the media and the interweb; I bow to your first hand experience, and am reassured. My experience of school teachers in the UK suggests the red tendency is a common trait worldwide! Those wouldn't be "public" school teachers over here of course.
Nice discussing this with you Victor except for one thing - You, obviously, do not know who, for the most part, teaches in US public schools. I can assure you that they are not religious zealots and that most of the public school teacher's political leanings are slightly to the left of Lenin (personal experience).
Religious viepoints (concerning creation or anything else) are usually discussed in a world history class or similar. Usually when discussing theology.
Creationism would not be taught in a pure science class. I took 9th through 12th Grades in Montgomery, Alabama public schools. The subject wasn't even brought up in any classes.
ErnestM
victormeldrew said:
might lead to less anti-American extremism in the world? I don't think people fly jets into tower blocks simply because they object to McDonalds franchises.
Victor; good post sir, except when you refer to any US religious person as a "fanatic" or "extreme" and, above, you mention "people flying jets into towers" as if they have a rational thing going. How about labeling them the same way. Fair enough?
Oh, and I don't think I referred to any US religious person as being a fanatic or extreme, or if I did it wasn't intentional. I am an Athiest myself, but have no problem at all with people being religious. Some of my best friends are Gideons. And I like America, and have visited many times, and probably will do so again.
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Sunday 13th November 23:22
Thanks for your response, and sorry from here if I accussed you unfairly
If you do visit, you have a place to stay with us. We'll go to Walmart and pick you up a Bible and a shotgun so whoever comes for you in the end, God or the heathens, you'll be ready Seriously, drop a line if you visit! >> Edited by jimbeaux on Monday 14th November 03:01
sadako said:
Intelligent Design cannot be disproved, is not a scientific theory - simply a statement that "we dont know what happened so god did it". The only difference between "ID" and creationism is the substitution of "some supernatural entity" for God.
Yes it can be disproved. If the universe is far too complicated to have evolved, and was created by a supreme being to be perfect; why do men have nipples?
IIRC men have nipples because the human body can be viewed as a basic template that is then modified to being either male or female, boobs and nipples are a part of that.
Feed a man enough female hormones and he will develop breasts but the milk producing glands are created by genes only expressed if you have two X chromosomes.
Nipples are a part of the basic "human" template that's then changed by male / female sex-specific genes and hormones into one sex or the other.
>> Edited by Thelemming on Monday 14th November 14:52
los angeles said:
Almost all politicians begin their careers as aethiests or non-believers, but as soon as their day comes the take care to be seen entering the most popular religous sanctum available, and on a regular basis.
Niccolo Machiavelli in Chapter 18 of The Prince said:
Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and
to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience
has been that those princes who have done great things have held good
faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the
intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have
relied on their word.
...
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good
qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to
have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and
always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them
is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright,
and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to
be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.
>> Edited by ecks ridgehead on Monday 14th November 16:40
Thelemming said:
Intelligent Design cannot be disproved, is not a scientific theory - simply a statement that "we dont know what happened so god did it". The only difference between "ID" and creationism is the substitution of "some supernatural entity" for God.
Yes it can be disproved. If the universe is far too complicated to have evolved, and was created by a supreme being to be perfect; why do men have nipples?
IIRC men have nipples because the human body can be viewed as a basic template that is then modified to being either male or female, boobs and nipples are a part of that.
Feed a man enough female hormones and he will develop breasts but the milk producing glands are created by genes only expressed if you have two X chromosomes.
Nipples are a part of the basic "human" template that's then changed by male / female sex-specific genes and hormones into one sex or the other.
>> Edited by Thelemming on Monday 14th November 14:52
I think you missed the point. I know why men have nipples. I know what happens when the above process messes up and have the scars to prove it, but thats by the by.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff