uncle flap Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 More like Uncle FAP. AMIRITE?!? lol, guilty as charged
bbb Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Christians. Not Christens. I like Kristens. Especially Kristen Bell.
uncle flap Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Seriously, this is a great point. One I've got to research a bit more. It is. But what's funny to me while the French don't consider their language divine per se, they (or at least the powers that be) are extremely protective of their language. I couldn't find a link during a quick search but I remember reading that there are dozens if not hundreds of new words added to the English language every year, while the French are reluctant to add any to their dictionary. It's and odd idea to standardize what is and what is not a word. If you understand what the word means, what's the big deal? Just adds to the image of the pretentious French I guess. PS I do understand the reason for standardized spelling of words, I just mean: Why try to prevent a word from becoming part of the vernacular?
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Anyone who's ever tried to read Chaucer can attest to that. Side note: Arabic, however, is the complete opposite. Since, as the language of the Koran, it's divine, hence perfect, hence immutable. Which probably has something to do with both why the early Islamic dynasties were so dynamic, and so much of the current Islamic world is so reactionary. You read Chaucer? I had no idea you where Oxford educated. Who else would try?
K-9 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 You read Chaucer? I had no idea you where Oxford educated. Who else would try? The Canterbury Tales were required reading in my 7th and 8th grade English classes. Great stuff.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 8, 2012 Author Posted June 8, 2012 The Canterbury Tales were required reading in my 7th and 8th grade English classes. Great stuff. I assume it was translated, though.
Tcali Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) The difference being that Evolution Theory is striving toward 100% accuracy, while Judeo-Christian creation mythology is 100% unsubstantiated and just fine with it. Which, as you point out, shouldn't be a problem. Live and let live, right? Except, HERE'S the problem...many Creationists would prefer that public schools eschew scientific theory for mythology. Sadly, there has been some success in this regard. That officially makes it a social issue. People should believe what makes them happy. In fact, believing that there's a god who set evolution in motion is logical. Not my belief, but it defies nothing besides the burden of proof. But let's not write a false narrative where the majority of the vitriol is coming from the agnostic side. Let me ask you something. If poll results were released tomorrow that showed 46% of Americans believed Zeus and Prometheus crafted mankind out of clay, wouldn't you find that just a little troublesome? Evolution --as a theory to prove that their is no creator has gotten nowhere.So evolution theory may be striving toward 100% accuracy(whatever the hell that means) ..But it has been spinning its wheels forever.No progress has been made with that slice of evolutionary theory. Normally real science gets you somewhere. Evolution as defined by the maturing and adaption of species has had bits and pieces that have scientifically progressed. I don't think that many people believe that mankind has evolved in the last several thousand years.We have built up a bigger knowledge base...but thats about it. Many in the catholic church incl the last few popes have stated that they believe in the evolution of mankind.Perhaps there was an adolescence as seen in prehistoric man.--But just go to the endzone sections at Bills games or at the dogpound...and you seriously have to wonder about the timeline on that. Apes to man?? no evidence. and i guess some apes just never evolved.and that none of them stopped at the inbetween phase. adam and Eve CAN be seen as the first fully evolved humans.the first to be fully responsible.the first to be responsible for their actions fully. Edited June 8, 2012 by Tcali
ajzepp Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Evolution --as a theory to prove that their is no creator has gotten nowhere.So evolution theory may be striving toward 100% accuracy(whatever the hell that means) ..But it has been spinning its wheels forever.No progress has been made with that slice of evolutionary theory. Normally real science gets you somewhere. Evolution as defined by the maturing and adaption of species has had bits and pieces that have scientifically progressed. I don't think that many people believe that mankind has evolved in the last several thousand years.We have built up a bigger knowledge base...but thats about it. Many in the catholic church incl the last few popes have stated that they believe in the evolution of mankind.Perhaps there was an adolescence as seen in prehistoric man.--But just go to the endzone sections at Bills games or at the dogpound...and you seriously have to wonder about the timeline on that. Apes to man?? no evidence. and i guess some apes just never evolved.and that none of them stopped at the inbetween phase. adam and Eve CAN be seen as the first fully evolved humans.the first to be fully responsible.the first to be responsible for their actions fully. See that's the aspect of this whole debate that I find really annoying. Why does the validity of evolution have to be a statement on the existence of a creator, and why does creationism have to be an attempt to invalidate evolution? I think the two camps are far overreaching their bounds on both sides of the debate. In the meantime, people like me are caught in the crossfire and often find it difficult to find an intelligent discussion on the topic without having to also deal with the politics of the thing.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) See that's the aspect of this whole debate that I find really annoying. Why does the validity of evolution have to be a statement on the existence of a creator, and why does creationism have to be an attempt to invalidate evolution? I think the two camps are far overreaching their bounds on both sides of the debate. In the meantime, people like me are caught in the crossfire and often find it difficult to find an intelligent discussion on the topic without having to also deal with the politics of the thing. I am not anti-religion... I do have faith in a creator... But religion brings so much drama and irrational baggage to the table. On the other side of the coin, it is neat, tight and tidy. One is born and one expires. Now... Look what you've done! You put the Philly mojo hex on the Celts... Not a big fan of BOS, but anybody is better than the Heat. You can put Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler on the Heat... They would be better than seeing those douches from Miami... Win... Okay, not really... That would be too much drama... Edited June 8, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
ajzepp Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) I am not anti-religion... I do have faith in a creator... But religion brings so much drama and irrational baggage to the table. On the other side of the coin, it is neat, tight and tidy. One is born and one expires. Now... Look what you've done! You put the Philly mojo hex on the Celts... Not a big fan of BOS, but anybody is better than the Heat. You can put Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler on the Heat... They would be better than seeing those douches from Miami... Win... Okay, not really... That would be too much drama... Dont worry, even if the Heat close out the Celts, there's no way in hell they'll get by Mr Durant. And I agree about the baggage thing...I'm truly embarrassed at the way people act in the name of religion. Religion was the main reason my marriage failed, as well...people really can become nuts with that stuff. Edited June 8, 2012 by ajzepp
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 You read Chaucer? I had no idea you where Oxford educated. Who else would try? Why would that even surprise anyone? I've even read Aeschylus in Greek.
LeviF Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I always wondered about that - why are there still apes? Why are there still Europeans? After all, many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans.
Jauronimo Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I always wondered about that - why are there still apes? Human beings have been the only animal yet capable of passing on knowledge to their offspring which is the last great barrier. Chimps communicate well, can learn to use tools, and are quite smart so they have the potential. Some individuals have even been observed passing knowledge down to offspring but that trait isn't universal so the knowledge often dies after 1 generation. The story of human beings is built upon our ability to start our children out with what we know so each generation builds off the one before. The other great apes probably learn a good deal during their lifespan but their offspring will perpetually reinvent the wheel. I wonder what will happen when gorillas or chimps start to form little jungle villages with banks and houses and brothels. Will we help our cousins along and bring them up to speed? Will we let them run their course relatively un-molested (you have to assume some interbreeding)? Could be kind of scary sharing our cities with 4ft tall 120lb monkeys that can rip our arms off and demonstrate a propensity to attack the fingers, face and genitals though. Will we just kill them?
K-9 Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Evolution --as a theory to prove that their is no creator has gotten nowhere.So evolution theory may be striving toward 100% accuracy(whatever the hell that means) ..But it has been spinning its wheels forever.No progress has been made with that slice of evolutionary theory. Normally real science gets you somewhere. Evolution as defined by the maturing and adaption of species has had bits and pieces that have scientifically progressed. I don't think that many people believe that mankind has evolved in the last several thousand years.We have built up a bigger knowledge base...but thats about it. Many in the catholic church incl the last few popes have stated that they believe in the evolution of mankind.Perhaps there was an adolescence as seen in prehistoric man.--But just go to the endzone sections at Bills games or at the dogpound...and you seriously have to wonder about the timeline on that. Apes to man?? no evidence. and i guess some apes just never evolved.and that none of them stopped at the inbetween phase. adam and Eve CAN be seen as the first fully evolved humans.the first to be fully responsible.the first to be responsible for their actions fully. Evolution is not a theory to disprove a creator. Never was. Evolution never postulated that man evolved from apes. Adam and Eve is just one of numerous religious stories about creation, some of which are older.
Jauronimo Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Evolution --as a theory to prove that their is no creator has gotten nowhere.So evolution theory may be striving toward 100% accuracy(whatever the hell that means) ..But it has been spinning its wheels forever.No progress has been made with that slice of evolutionary theory. Normally real science gets you somewhere. Evolution as defined by the maturing and adaption of species has had bits and pieces that have scientifically progressed. I don't think that many people believe that mankind has evolved in the last several thousand years.We have built up a bigger knowledge base...but thats about it. Many in the catholic church incl the last few popes have stated that they believe in the evolution of mankind.Perhaps there was an adolescence as seen in prehistoric man.--But just go to the endzone sections at Bills games or at the dogpound...and you seriously have to wonder about the timeline on that. Apes to man?? no evidence. and i guess some apes just never evolved.and that none of them stopped at the inbetween phase. adam and Eve CAN be seen as the first fully evolved humans.the first to be fully responsible.the first to be responsible for their actions fully. As K-9 pointed the theory of evolution never sought to disprove a creator. Claiming that evolution has been spinning its wheels trying to gain traction is absolutely absurd. Unless by getting nowhere you meant nearly universally accepted as fact. We've evolved a great deal from early from early humanoids. Our anatomy and physiology has certainly changed. The shape of our skulls has changed dramatically, hair coverage, average height and weight. Some of that is the product of nutrition and technology. Your point about lack of evolution or noticeable change is puzzling, unless you're referring to the past few thousand years which can be easily explained. First, its too short of a time period to draw a meaningful conclusion. Second, mankind has done their best to remove nearly all of the selective pressures we face whereby individuals pass on favorable traits. These pressures are the basic mechanism of evolution. Through medical advancement, technology, and the truly baffling criteria mate choice exhibited by our females, we face almost no selective pressure which would necessitate a significant adaptation. Evolutionary theory is not predicated upon a gradual shift from one species to another. There are other schools of thought, namely punctuated equilibrium. Evolution takes a long time, but some changes can happen very rapidly through extreme pressure, mutation, inbreeding, and many other factors which I've long since forgotten. So lack of intermediary organisms, or stepping stones between one species to the next does nothing to discredit evolution. Especially when considering all the conditions needed for fossil formation, preservation, and the chance that we even stumble across the remains. There is overwhelming evidence of mans evolution from apes. We did not evolve from chimps or gorillas, but rather a common ancestor. Scientists have found remains of many early humanoids, and ground dwelling apes. They have yet to locate the common ancestor between modern humans and the apes we know today, but the genetic similarity cannot be ignored. And all apes evolved (or went extinct) just not all involved into human beings. Again, evolution cannot be discredited simply because all monkeys aren't human beings. That is absurd. You can view Adam and Eve as the first fully evolved human beings all you like, but you cannot even come close to proving that they actually existed. Meanwhile, we can absolutely disprove the notion that mankind is only 5,000 years old as "fully evolved human beings" pre-date that mark by overa 100,000 years.
BuffOrange Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I never understood why people hate on other people that believe in the Judeo-Christian story of creation. Why does it bother some people so much? I'm a staunch believer in the Theory of Evolution and have been since I was a kid. I know Christians and Jews that believe in the Biblical Creation story. Oops, I'm sorry I forgot it's only cool to bash them if they're Christian so forget I mentioned the Jews. Anyways, I've discussed this several times with believers in Biblical Creation. They're not mouthbreathing hillbilly rednecks. They're normal people that understand the science behind it. I know a chick that believes in Creationism and has pointed out flaws in the theory of Evolution. Neither belief is 100% accurate I try to keep an open mind about just about anything. I believe the climate is changing. I don't believe in Manbearpig's Powerpoint®. I believe you should have the right to smoke pot. I also believe drugs are bad, mmmkay. I believe you should have the right to shove a d*ck up your *ss. I also believe you should not simulate that act in front of a church. I believe in the theory of Evolution. I also believe in God. They're not mutually exclusive. My own personal theory is of Eric Cartman as God. And on the 7th day he said... Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home As an Atheist/Agnostic, I am bitter and zealous in my belief. That's because I am sick and tired of having Christians trying to jam their belief down my throat every time I turn around. I have stopped counting the number of times I have been told "Freedom of Religion does not mean Freedom from Religion". Can you give some examples of their beliefs being "jammed down your throat every time you turn around"?
DrDawkinstein Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Can you give some examples of their beliefs being "jammed down your throat every time you turn around"? Dont mean to speak for Cynical, as Im sure he will give you many examples from Alabama similar to my experiences in Georgia. I've had potential customers want to know which church I and my coworkers belong to before deciding to do business. I've gone into business meetings where we were forced to join in on a prayer before we got started. "God" forbid, they find out I dont go to church. I made the mistake of being honest the first couple of times I was asked. I still get emails from a former customer full of their churchy BS, trying to "save" me. This is just at work, where people are supposed to be professional. You wouldnt believe the amount of strangers that will confront you on the street, out of no where, if you are wearing a tshirt of the "wrong type" of band, have a visible tattoo, or anything else they dont like. Anytime you want to venture on down to the Bible Belt, we can show you pretty easily.
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I've had potential customers want to know which church I and my coworkers belong to before deciding to do business. I've gone into business meetings where we were forced to join in on a prayer before we got started. "God" forbid, they find out I dont go to church. I made the mistake of being honest the first couple of times I was asked. I still get emails from a former customer full of their churchy BS, trying to "save" me. This is just at work, where people are supposed to be professional. To them, that is professional. That's their culture and they are free to express it. Of course that's one reason why I'd never live in the deep south.
Recommended Posts