|
|
Post by saturniidave on May 10, 2011 14:33:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by dertodesking on May 10, 2011 15:08:23 GMT -8
LOL ;D ;D ;D
I particularly liked the paragraphs...
"Dr. Booble, who received his doctorate in paleontology from the respected Holy Patriot!™ Bible University and Correspondence College of Claptrappe, Oklahoma"
...and "Dr. Booble's colleague, Dr. D. Oxy Ribonucleic, offers an alternative view to Dr. Booble's interpretation.
"This saddle is far too narrow to fit across the sweeping shoulders of a Stegosaurus," said Dr. Ribonucleic. "It is far more likely that early man used it when riding the much faster and more versatile Velociraptor. Furthermore, we know Velociraptor was a vegetarian, as can be clearly deduced from its long rows of razor-sharp teeth, perfectly designed for tearing leaves from trees or rooting for truffles and other buried delicacies, and could therefore be domesticated at very low risk."
Did you see this one on the "Sacred Stool"...http://www.avantnews.com/news/38255-fossilized-feces-of-jesus-wreaks-havoc
It really is unbelievable that there are people out there who DO actually believe this kind of rubbish. What makes it even worse is the lobbying to have this kind of stuff introduced into schools!!! Hopefully it's one trend that will not cross the pond from the US to the UK.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on May 10, 2011 22:42:33 GMT -8
Thanks dave, it will make my day !  |
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 11, 2011 3:31:40 GMT -8
I think it is a cute tongue in cheek story. However, there are large numbers of people who do believe in young earth (whether by deity or not) and insulting them gives the appearance of arrogance and foolishness that will alienate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 11, 2011 3:48:08 GMT -8
the article is probably a joke ! How can you believe it is serious with a such story with Dr Oxy Ribonucleic (+ many other sarcastic details). Even a creationist can't believe it  Why not also the hat and whip of Indiana Jones with the saddle ? |
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 11, 2011 11:54:06 GMT -8
A creationist might. The practical jokes I played in college were epic. Even my geology proff was initially fooled by the fossilized dinosaur teeth we embedded in a fossilized lemur skull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on May 11, 2011 12:16:32 GMT -8
Sadly - the article is too easy to believe. But the website is a parody news web site… (Kind of like Fox News in many regards…)
John
|
|
|
|
Post by dertodesking on May 11, 2011 12:42:03 GMT -8
I think it is a cute tongue in cheek story. However, there are large numbers of people who do believe in young earth (whether by deity or not) and insulting them gives the appearance of arrogance and foolishness that will alienate them. I disagree...but then you probably guessed that from my reply to Dave's original post. Let me start by saying that as a devout athiest ( ;D) I have no issue or problem with any religion per se or anyone who holds religious beliefs. My work brings me into regular contact with a number of religious people (priests, imams, rabbis etc) and I can honestly say that they are some of the nicest people I have ever met - I'm honoured to count some of these people as genuine friends. Equally, I have friends who would class themselves as athiest/agnostic/jedi etc who are equally as moral, would never go out of their way to harm anyone and would do anything they could to help you out of a bad situation... However, as a scientist (like you I did a Geology degree followed by a Masters degree in Environmental Science) I repeat my assertion that stories such as this are rubbish. Now while the article that Dave linked to was CLEARLY a joke (just look at the names of the people allegedly involved!) the article only exists because there really are people who do believe this kind of thing as fact based on nothing more than their faith. It isn't good enough to say that something is a FACT when actually it is a BELIEF. Does this happen? Yes! Did you see the thread/photos on the old forum of a "Creation Museum" somewhere in the US on the old forum? Did you see the picture of Disney-esque (vegetarian) T. rex "playing" with cavemen children? What is this based on? Belief and faith and NOT fact. I find it worrying that there are people out there presenting this kind of stuff as factual and lobbying to have creationism introduced into the school curriculum. While I have no doubt that religion does some good...that's not always the case. Just look at the murders of doctors performing abortions/attacks on abortion clinics or even the attacks on the Twin Towers. I'm sure the perpetrators would claim to be religiously motivated (in their view not mine) or at least be able to justify their actions (to themselves at least) by their interpretation of their religion. My final thoughts on this. I don't watch a lot of TV preferring to listen to speech-based/phone-in radio. I hear callers almost every day who phone in, regardless of the topic being discussed, to espouse their religious views and preach to the masses. I respect that they have a right to do so and wouldn't accuse them of being arrogant for holding a view I disagree with. Equally, its my view that creationism is rubbish and I don't see how that's either foolish or arrogant. God bless  Simon |
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 11, 2011 12:56:21 GMT -8
Religion is not really part of the argument. Whatever your belief based on what you think is fact should not be belittled. Your exact words were "It really is unbelievable that there are people out there who DO actually believe this kind of rubbish." If I used the same words about your belief in multiple gods Simon, it would be arrogant and intolerant. If the same intolerance was prevalent when evolution as a source of life was introduced, it may not have become mainstream as there was not yet enough significant research to support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dertodesking on May 11, 2011 13:35:28 GMT -8
Religion is not really part of the argument. Whatever your belief based on what you think is fact should not be belittled. Your exact words were "It really is unbelievable that there are people out there who DO actually believe this kind of rubbish." If I used the same words about your belief in multiple gods Simon, it would be arrogant and intolerant. If the same intolerance was prevalent when evolution as a source of life was introduced, it may not have become mainstream as there was not yet enough significant research to support it. Hi winged (sorry, I don't know your name), Surely religion is absolutely central to the creationist argument? I've never seen or read anything supporting creationism as a "belief" which doesn't come from a religious background. Even the so-called "intelligent design" movement believes that someone or something directed creation even if they avoid the use of the word God (although interestingly most of the main proponents within the movement are evangelical Christians). I don't believe in any God, let alone multiple Gods, as I can see no evidence to suggest that there is such a being or beings. However, if I did, you'd be perfectly at liberty to say that you thought it was rubbish and I wouldn't take offence. I wouldn't find it arrogant or intolerant if somebody said that they thought my belief, based on evidence rather than faith, of evolution was wrong - it wouldn't change my mind though if the only argument put against my belief was one of faith and the "fact" that "it is written..."! Not all of my religious friends believe in the creation story - many consider it as some kind of parable/metaphor - but I've had discussions and debates with those who believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story and told them that I think they're mad! We're happy to disagree and still remain friends. Simon PS - I maybe should have written "I can't believe that people believe this as in MY OPINION it's rubbish" |
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 11, 2011 14:14:23 GMT -8
We're fine. This is an argument that people usually take to extremes and then emotions bleed in. The original definition of Atheism was that there was no belief in a supreme god so many religions can fall in that category. The definition was expanded to mean what it does today (I like etymology as well as entomology). Can't argue something like a god as it is not quantifiable. A young Earth is. There are things which indicate the Earth is younger. I'll not debate how life came to be as this would require either a witness or a replicatable method where life was created. We may have a barrier as well as not all English words mean the same thing on both sides of the pond. Now - my personal belief is more akin to DNA arriving on the planet in bacteria or viruses via meteorites or some yet undiscovered alien. From there, adaptive radiation brought us here. Can I prove it? No really. I just have faith that it happened based on what I've read. Thanks for your replies. This has been a good discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 11, 2011 22:24:21 GMT -8
my personal belief is more akin to DNA arriving on the planet in bacteria or viruses via meteorites or some yet undiscovered alien. From there, adaptive radiation brought us here. Can I prove it? be serious, even DNA came from alien (what none can proove today) that just means that life existed before it arrived on earth !!!!!!!! that doesn't explain how it has been created. many theories exists to explain the apparition of DNA and surely one of them is the real one. In fact, " some molecules that exist in DNA may be present outside the earth " that doesn't mean that DNA was "created" out the earth. the real problem is "how life appeared" (probably with a great ammount of good simultaneous factors), the rest (evolution, etc, ...) is not so difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by dertodesking on May 12, 2011 13:09:10 GMT -8
We're fine. Thanks for your replies. This has been a good discussion. Yeah! We're good - and thanks for yours too! - it's been interesting to hear someones else thoughts without the whole thing getting too heated Simon |
|
|
|
Post by wingedwishes on May 12, 2011 13:51:17 GMT -8
When people feel their faith is at risk, it gets heated. I suppose it's a "cop out" for me to say "Ok God, you can explain what you did or not but I am still going to live by what I think is ethical/moral." I say this right before I say "And if you are real, I'd really like to have a gynandromorph bird wing."
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on May 13, 2011 8:24:56 GMT -8
Creationism is a construct of an American Evangelical institution. That's why it's called "intelligent design" now- the courts ruled that Creationism was in fact a component of the Christian ideology which cannot be taught in schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution because we are a diverse nation that supposedly respects all religious persuasions equally (although atheism is somehow not afforded the same respect- that word itself is strange- "why have a word like that? there isn't a word for not believing in witches"). Once creationism was shut down a group invented the new term "Intelligent Design" and generated the infamous "Panda" book (a "science" text bookwhich included a section on "Intelligent Design". That too was shot down by the supreme court because it was demonstrated that the term "Intelligent Design" was indeed a construct of the same body which proposed "Creationism" and was not different. Young earth is only prescribed to this type of thinking to my knowledge. The rest of us have heard of radiocarbon dating...
|
|
