Sorry Cows, but the "teach all kind fo ideas and let them kids choose" is bull. With that argument we could teach also Nazi ideology and Alquaida bomb assembling courses alongside creatonism and say, "oh let them kids choose what to make out of it, they are smart".
I agree with that we should offer to them all kind of ideas. However, creatonism has long ceased to be an idea, it has become an ideology, the ideology of a fundamentlist group. Ideologies of fundamentalist groups should not get any room at all, especially not a class room.
Creationism/Evolution
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
PS: There are non-evolutionary effects on DNA, like the eye colour of certain flies' offspring changing after they have been exposed to a heat shock, but that is very different from guided environment adaption outside selection.
I do believe that there is more to soul and life than we perceive via the physical realm, but this aspect of living beings cannot be squeezed into some half-assed asumptions about DNA.
I do believe that there is more to soul and life than we perceive via the physical realm, but this aspect of living beings cannot be squeezed into some half-assed asumptions about DNA.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
-
Sophia
- Concise and Honest
- Posts: 4240
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
- Location: Nowhere in particular
- Contact:
The nice thing about science is that it is constantly revising its thinking in light of new evidence. (In contrast to religious dogma, which tries to sweep new evidence under the rug)Paul Stevens wrote:Strange things are being discovered about experiences having effects on future generations. It ain't one hundred percent DNA.
As it stands, these theories seem to be discredited. However, it wouldn't be the first time that aspects of a once discredited theory came back into the limelight in light of new evidence. If that happens I expect that most logically-minded people will revise their thinking accordingly.
Unfortunately that means that science can cover up its mistakes. Looking back, and what we accept now, you could argue that science is or has been as flawed as any religious beliefs. Ptolemy, Brahe? The latter was a total misjudgement of evidence. Science has as many get out clauses as religion does.
However...
However...
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
That's because these ideas are misinterpretations that have already been discredited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
I had no idea this was presented already and "discarded" but in the process of reading about lamarkism and then by proxy about the weismann barrier, it seems new evidence is coming to light that lamarckism is not such a crazy idea after all. Seems this barrier idea is contradicted in the reactions of retro-virus' and immune system response, that the barrier is indeed crossed. Meaning that it is in fact possible and that indeed traits/skills of the parent can indeed pass on to the child. Which to me makes the most sense.
The idea that a creature could be accidentally born with the complex knowlege of how to walk by random convergence is a lot less likley than the parent knew how to walk and so passed that information on to the child through it's genes. The majority of my family are artists, musician, or teacher. What did I become? an art teacher.. and not through direct choice, or influence of my parents, because my mom is a nurse and wanted me to be a doctor. and I did not have a whole lot of exposure to the rest of my family until later in life.
Twins who are sperated at birth and yet go into very similar vocations, select similar mates.. and yet never have contact with each other or their birth family. What causes that to occur?
These things are documented fact. So why think it so crazy to conclude that such things are passed on genetically?
That said, I think that just about anyone can draw if they have an interest in drawing, I've proved that too.. but some are just drawn to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
I had no idea this was presented already and "discarded" but in the process of reading about lamarkism and then by proxy about the weismann barrier, it seems new evidence is coming to light that lamarckism is not such a crazy idea after all. Seems this barrier idea is contradicted in the reactions of retro-virus' and immune system response, that the barrier is indeed crossed. Meaning that it is in fact possible and that indeed traits/skills of the parent can indeed pass on to the child. Which to me makes the most sense.
The idea that a creature could be accidentally born with the complex knowlege of how to walk by random convergence is a lot less likley than the parent knew how to walk and so passed that information on to the child through it's genes. The majority of my family are artists, musician, or teacher. What did I become? an art teacher.. and not through direct choice, or influence of my parents, because my mom is a nurse and wanted me to be a doctor. and I did not have a whole lot of exposure to the rest of my family until later in life.
Twins who are sperated at birth and yet go into very similar vocations, select similar mates.. and yet never have contact with each other or their birth family. What causes that to occur?
These things are documented fact. So why think it so crazy to conclude that such things are passed on genetically?
That said, I think that just about anyone can draw if they have an interest in drawing, I've proved that too.. but some are just drawn to it.
Cows: Well, you might very well come from an ancestry with genes that define some aspects of intuition useful for art and similar. These genes may very well be passed on to offspring. Traits passed on genetically often do not occur in every generation, but often only recur in other iterations like every second generation.
But what you are implying is, if you come from a family of lets say mathematicians and possess genes good for logical thinking, but for some reason decide to become a painter, by that process you'd start to alter you DNA so your children also become better painters. And that's just not like DNA multiplikation and DNA diversification work. While we do not or not yet understand all the DNA syntax, we do know very well how it is multiplied and diversified, and there is no such thing as neural or chemical control of specific gene loci.
Paul: Religion might be flawed, and there have always been scientists so biased by their own knowledge that they dismissed every new idea just because it has been new, and not because it actually had been bull. The difference is, that while science does have its flaws and mistakes, at least it has the goal of finding new knowledge by processing new information derived from new explorations and experiments.
When religion does something new like declaring nazi ideology to be religion and label it scientology or declare biblical figures to be litteral truth, these incidents are not based on reconsidering information, they are solely based on something someone made up. If such a process is called fiction, I'm fine with it, if its someones personal religion, its not my affair, but if such people start to call it religion or truth compulsory for everyone and start trying to force the societies they live in to share their attitude, it does get my affair, whether I want to or not.
Dürrenmatt once said that ideas become perverted the very moment they start to become ideologies. Creatonism is the perfect example.
But what you are implying is, if you come from a family of lets say mathematicians and possess genes good for logical thinking, but for some reason decide to become a painter, by that process you'd start to alter you DNA so your children also become better painters. And that's just not like DNA multiplikation and DNA diversification work. While we do not or not yet understand all the DNA syntax, we do know very well how it is multiplied and diversified, and there is no such thing as neural or chemical control of specific gene loci.
Paul: Religion might be flawed, and there have always been scientists so biased by their own knowledge that they dismissed every new idea just because it has been new, and not because it actually had been bull. The difference is, that while science does have its flaws and mistakes, at least it has the goal of finding new knowledge by processing new information derived from new explorations and experiments.
When religion does something new like declaring nazi ideology to be religion and label it scientology or declare biblical figures to be litteral truth, these incidents are not based on reconsidering information, they are solely based on something someone made up. If such a process is called fiction, I'm fine with it, if its someones personal religion, its not my affair, but if such people start to call it religion or truth compulsory for everyone and start trying to force the societies they live in to share their attitude, it does get my affair, whether I want to or not.
Dürrenmatt once said that ideas become perverted the very moment they start to become ideologies. Creatonism is the perfect example.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
-
Paul Stevens
- CSBwin Guru
- Posts: 4318
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
I think you are a bit hasty to chalk thesewe do know very well how it is multiplied and diversified, and there is no such thing as neural or chemical control of specific gene loci.
statements up as fact. Exciting discoveries
are being made every day in both of these
areas. This science is not mature.
That is what 'pseudo-scientists' sometimes seembut if such people start to call it ... truth
to do. Call the theories 'truth'. It ain't that way
in real science. It is the 'Theory' of evolution.
The General 'Theory' of relativity. String 'Theory'.
The Big Bang 'Theory'. Quantum 'Theory'.
Science is very carful to use that word 'theory'
because it knows that the theory is
only the best explanation that has been
suggested to date. It is not 'truth'. Yet
many teachers, books, and documentaries
present these theories as truths. In fact,
a few people even get emotional about such
things, just as if it were a religion. In the case
of quantum theory and relativity theory, it
is well known that one MUST actually be false
or, at best, incomplete.
Moreover, speaking of Dungeon Master . . . .
it is the perfect example.
-
Mon Ful Ir
- Adept
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:54 am
- Location: Britain
I wouldn't send my son to a school that gave any time to creationism.
Evolution does have some big questions to answer (such as where life came from in the first place). But the fact that it has some questions to answer doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't make creationism "science".
I think intelligent design, creationism, and all the other fundamentalist Trojan horses into the intellectual edifice of science can be safely ignored until they can come up with a credible theodicy and a sensible answer to Russell's teapot.
Evolution does have some big questions to answer (such as where life came from in the first place). But the fact that it has some questions to answer doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't make creationism "science".
I think intelligent design, creationism, and all the other fundamentalist Trojan horses into the intellectual edifice of science can be safely ignored until they can come up with a credible theodicy and a sensible answer to Russell's teapot.
-
Mon Ful Ir
- Adept
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:54 am
- Location: Britain
Well, there's degrees of "false" to consider here.Paul Stevens wrote:In the case
of quantum theory and relativity theory, it
is well known that one MUST actually be false
or, at best, incomplete.
Newton's theory of gravity is "false", for a given value of false--in the sense that Einstein describes reality more accurately. But Newton's theory was quite adequate for Nasa who used it to put a man on the moon.
String theory is, perhaps, "true", for a given value of true. But because it's mathematically intractable, even if it were true, Nasa couldn't have used it to put a man on the moon.
Which makes Newton's theory, though "untrue", the more useful one. Wouldn't you say?
-
Paul Stevens
- CSBwin Guru
- Posts: 4318
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 6:00 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
'Useful' is a whole different matter. That's
engineering, not science. I believe that
religion can be useful. I think the Pope
has found it useful.
By the way, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
It describes some interesting observations.
engineering, not science. I believe that
religion can be useful. I think the Pope
has found it useful.
By the way, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
It describes some interesting observations.
-
Sophia
- Concise and Honest
- Posts: 4240
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
- Location: Nowhere in particular
- Contact:
String theory can't be falsified with current technology. It is something that seems to logically explain reality based on what we currently know (that is, the math makes sense), but it has to be taken "on faith" because it can't actually be tested.Mon Ful Ir wrote:String theory is, perhaps, "true", for a given value of true.
Which, interestingly enough, sounds a lot like religion, particularly back in "Biblical Times" when modern science didn't exist.
Well technically it doesn't, as they're completely different and unrelated subjects. That's abiogenesis and it has nothing to do with evolution in any way whatsoever.Mon Ful Ir wrote: Evolution does have some big questions to answer (such as where life came from in the first place).
Child of Darkness,
Child of Light,
Cast your Influence,
Cast your Might!
Child of Light,
Cast your Influence,
Cast your Might!
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
forgot to add my two cents about teaching all the facts. Tobias, you suggest that teaching Nazi Ideology is not done, in fact it is taught, it's called history class. We are made aware of the what happened, what was his belief, and how he got others to buy into it.
You send a kid out into the woods, give him a gun and say watch out for wolves. The kid not knowing what a wolf is shoots a deer and says "whew! thank god that wolf didn't get me.. "
Being aware of specific ideas, and information is not going to be of great danger to someone in every case. Sure you can come up with a few examples of where it might be.. ie, when you witness a shooting and they see you.. well your knowledge of their deed is a danger to you. or.. if someone tells you how to make pipe bombs but omits information or morals, it can be a problem.. you could hurt yourself or someone else.
However saying, there is a group of people who think the divine hand of god changes animals and creates animals to look and act as they do. Is not a danger, because if handled in a proper way, you would likely also add "there is no proof evident in nature to suggest this at this point in time, however on the side of evolution, we have these bones showing... " etc giving ALL the information, is the important key.
The perfect example is this Lamarkism.. it's something that was claimed as not true and thrown out whole sale.. now some people who know enough about the past ideas and writings say it might be possible after all. Too late for me though.. I was not taught anything about it in school.. in fact that particular idea was omited. the Weismann barrier was also not really mentioned.. and the more I read about this new information, the DIFFERENT AND VARIED IDEAS the more I became aware of the whole, the more I was able to make an educated decision about what I would like to hold faith in.
I was raised with sunday school and church and the whole 9 yards.. I had two bibles, one was the regular one, and the other was a "comic book bible" which has comic book type drawings and word bubbles etc.. shortened down versions of the tales etc. There were a good number of expectations that I hold to one idea and one idea only.. and accept the "because I said so" method of the church. No explaining.. it was not until I got older and asked my own questions that I began to see more beyond the veil.. I looked at other religions, and in highschool I examined science with my many unanswered questions and made my own way in life. My mother was not religious really, but my father was.. and my step dad when my mom remarried went to church too.. so while I was exposed to it.. I had at least one voice in there telling me it was ok to explore beyond the church.. not everyone has that.. without it, despite what was taught in school I may have just accepted the creationism idea. No one was there to say this is why creationism is incorrect..
I think intelligent comparison and fact will let people become aware of the truth as we see it in the today and now.. and by giving all the facts and ideas we know to this point regardless if they were flawed.. we open up the possibility to let our future generations to ask new questions, or to re-examine the old ones with the help of the facts. Why wait until we are through 5 years of university and study to hear about the rest of it?
does that make more sense.. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough. but I know it makes perfect sense to me.. When I teach, I try to give more than just what buttons to push in the software, I tell them where they might go wrong, how the tools work, and why we do things the way we do. I watch other teachers show it as "here's the button.. push it" I can immediately tell you who's students are better prepared and which ones advance further and faster.. So I know I'm not wrong
You send a kid out into the woods, give him a gun and say watch out for wolves. The kid not knowing what a wolf is shoots a deer and says "whew! thank god that wolf didn't get me.. "
Being aware of specific ideas, and information is not going to be of great danger to someone in every case. Sure you can come up with a few examples of where it might be.. ie, when you witness a shooting and they see you.. well your knowledge of their deed is a danger to you. or.. if someone tells you how to make pipe bombs but omits information or morals, it can be a problem.. you could hurt yourself or someone else.
However saying, there is a group of people who think the divine hand of god changes animals and creates animals to look and act as they do. Is not a danger, because if handled in a proper way, you would likely also add "there is no proof evident in nature to suggest this at this point in time, however on the side of evolution, we have these bones showing... " etc giving ALL the information, is the important key.
The perfect example is this Lamarkism.. it's something that was claimed as not true and thrown out whole sale.. now some people who know enough about the past ideas and writings say it might be possible after all. Too late for me though.. I was not taught anything about it in school.. in fact that particular idea was omited. the Weismann barrier was also not really mentioned.. and the more I read about this new information, the DIFFERENT AND VARIED IDEAS the more I became aware of the whole, the more I was able to make an educated decision about what I would like to hold faith in.
I was raised with sunday school and church and the whole 9 yards.. I had two bibles, one was the regular one, and the other was a "comic book bible" which has comic book type drawings and word bubbles etc.. shortened down versions of the tales etc. There were a good number of expectations that I hold to one idea and one idea only.. and accept the "because I said so" method of the church. No explaining.. it was not until I got older and asked my own questions that I began to see more beyond the veil.. I looked at other religions, and in highschool I examined science with my many unanswered questions and made my own way in life. My mother was not religious really, but my father was.. and my step dad when my mom remarried went to church too.. so while I was exposed to it.. I had at least one voice in there telling me it was ok to explore beyond the church.. not everyone has that.. without it, despite what was taught in school I may have just accepted the creationism idea. No one was there to say this is why creationism is incorrect..
I think intelligent comparison and fact will let people become aware of the truth as we see it in the today and now.. and by giving all the facts and ideas we know to this point regardless if they were flawed.. we open up the possibility to let our future generations to ask new questions, or to re-examine the old ones with the help of the facts. Why wait until we are through 5 years of university and study to hear about the rest of it?
does that make more sense.. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough. but I know it makes perfect sense to me.. When I teach, I try to give more than just what buttons to push in the software, I tell them where they might go wrong, how the tools work, and why we do things the way we do. I watch other teachers show it as "here's the button.. push it" I can immediately tell you who's students are better prepared and which ones advance further and faster.. So I know I'm not wrong
mind droppings
a few minddroppings...
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU
(Dogbert and the theory of evolution)
My former chief, with whom I've been working for almost 8 years now, has done his doctorate in both mathematics and physics and 'still' he is strongly believing in creationism.
Religion seems to be a topic on which a kind of tabu is layed upon, so we've never really talked much about how in his mind creationism and his strong attachment to science can go sidelong.
At least two other guys in our department are creationists, one of them has actually designed/optimized his own custom hip joint using advanced FEM algorithms. Wierdos.
I can't tell how it is possible to believe the earth/mankind is just a few thousand years old while having access to all the knowledge 'proving' it to be plainly wrong.
Still it seems science and creationism/strong religious belief can go well along, at least in a persons mind.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU
(Dogbert and the theory of evolution)
My former chief, with whom I've been working for almost 8 years now, has done his doctorate in both mathematics and physics and 'still' he is strongly believing in creationism.
Religion seems to be a topic on which a kind of tabu is layed upon, so we've never really talked much about how in his mind creationism and his strong attachment to science can go sidelong.
At least two other guys in our department are creationists, one of them has actually designed/optimized his own custom hip joint using advanced FEM algorithms. Wierdos.
I can't tell how it is possible to believe the earth/mankind is just a few thousand years old while having access to all the knowledge 'proving' it to be plainly wrong.
Still it seems science and creationism/strong religious belief can go well along, at least in a persons mind.
Cows: Yes, we do know let kids in school know about the existence, history and the changing acceptance of a theory like the evolution and about the life of Mr. Darwin as well as about the theories of Lamarck and what has become of them. So why I'm against accepting creatonism into the educational curriculum? Because what the evangelicans and their republicans try to do is not to allow teachers to say "Well, there are theories, for one the evolution, which works like this and has these evidence, and on the other hand creatonism, which is based on this idea, it is inspired mainly by religious groups who claim to have some evidence, none of which is scientifically valid".
They want to force teachers to uphold creatonism as being at least equal in validity as evolution, and that is very unlike what history course does with nazi ideology in the aforementioned example. Have you ever actually got your hands on a creatonism "school book"? They just don't use a scientific or senisble education approach, they present their so-called facts in a propaganda-style way. Have you ever seen the contents of those creatonist "museums" and "exhibitions", that use lots of chique effects to make a visit there more worthwhile, that is entertaining, for kids, than other scientific museums? Bush's buddies try to make an utterly unproven theory become accepted as truth by pumping lots of money into propaganda and aiming it at the youngest. A constitutional state should be aware that such is a great danger to all and use its jurisdiction to prevent that from happening. Which it doesn't unfortunately.
They want to force teachers to uphold creatonism as being at least equal in validity as evolution, and that is very unlike what history course does with nazi ideology in the aforementioned example. Have you ever actually got your hands on a creatonism "school book"? They just don't use a scientific or senisble education approach, they present their so-called facts in a propaganda-style way. Have you ever seen the contents of those creatonist "museums" and "exhibitions", that use lots of chique effects to make a visit there more worthwhile, that is entertaining, for kids, than other scientific museums? Bush's buddies try to make an utterly unproven theory become accepted as truth by pumping lots of money into propaganda and aiming it at the youngest. A constitutional state should be aware that such is a great danger to all and use its jurisdiction to prevent that from happening. Which it doesn't unfortunately.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
My opinion is that faith (belief, religion) and science are two completely different things that shouldn't be mixed under any circumstances.
Science is based on facts you can sense, on evidence, proofs, verification, falsification, etc. Faith, on the other hand (at least in Christian sense, as far as I'm aware), is based on the very basic assumption that the existence of a God cannot be verified nor falsified - not with your senses, not directly. That's an absolutely crucial moment, I think.
So these two approaches are totally incompatible, they are at completely different levels of cognition. Both bringing religion into science and bringing science into religion make no sense at all, and would do no good.
A typical (and hopefully the only) example is marxism, that brought beliefs into science - a belief in the existence of a structure determining our behaviour, a structure that cannot be proved (becaused it cannot be sensed), and which can be revealed only by a process of abstraction (without any direct linkages to empirical findings).
(well, now I know this statement can create a wave of discontent and disagreement, but I stand for it because I have studied the principles of marxism for some time and I think it is a RELIGION of some kind; besides that, I have some bad experiences of its practical application in our country)
Science is based on facts you can sense, on evidence, proofs, verification, falsification, etc. Faith, on the other hand (at least in Christian sense, as far as I'm aware), is based on the very basic assumption that the existence of a God cannot be verified nor falsified - not with your senses, not directly. That's an absolutely crucial moment, I think.
So these two approaches are totally incompatible, they are at completely different levels of cognition. Both bringing religion into science and bringing science into religion make no sense at all, and would do no good.
A typical (and hopefully the only) example is marxism, that brought beliefs into science - a belief in the existence of a structure determining our behaviour, a structure that cannot be proved (becaused it cannot be sensed), and which can be revealed only by a process of abstraction (without any direct linkages to empirical findings).
(well, now I know this statement can create a wave of discontent and disagreement, but I stand for it because I have studied the principles of marxism for some time and I think it is a RELIGION of some kind; besides that, I have some bad experiences of its practical application in our country)
-
MitchB1990
- Artisan
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:49 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
I believe that a persons beliefs cannot be taught to them by others, but they are formed over their lifetime based on the truth they find in themselves and society. No one will ever be able to accept, or even truly believe anything that is force fed to them. There are to many ideas and theories to pinpoint any single one of them as correct, each has it's flaws and it's perfections but all in all it's up to the individual to truly believe in what they think is real. I am neither religious or atheist, but I do believe that everything came from somewhere we will never be able to fathom, as individuals or a species, so I say live in the present and enjoy what life has truly given you. I mean it's cool to theorize where we came from or how we came to be, but it shouldn't be a domineering factor in our lives. So if you have a problem with Evolutionism or Creationism being taught in school, give the students a choice and let them follow what they believe.
Just my $0.02
Just my $0.02
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Joined 27 Feb 2005 as Dark.
-
MasterWuuf
- Arch Master
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana
Re: mind droppings
That was a great video. A person can have a strong belief in something, yet 'give a little room' for a bit of humor.T0Mi wrote:a few minddroppings...
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU
(Dogbert and the theory of evolution)
My former chief, with whom I've been working for almost 8 years now, has done his doctorate in both mathematics and physics and 'still' he is strongly believing in creationism.
Religion seems to be a topic on which a kind of tabu is layed upon, so we've never really talked much about how in his mind creationism and his strong attachment to science can go sidelong.
At least two other guys in our department are creationists, one of them has actually designed/optimized his own custom hip joint using advanced FEM algorithms. Wierdos.
I can't tell how it is possible to believe the earth/mankind is just a few thousand years old while having access to all the knowledge 'proving' it to be plainly wrong.
Still it seems science and creationism/strong religious belief can go well along, at least in a persons mind.
P.S. Hebrews 11:1 (yeah, a bible verse
) speaks of faith as an assurance (substance, evidence) of things hoped for...Problem with most people, is that they have a 'blind' faith, which is not really what I would call faith in the first place.
Lunever made a good comment to me (I believe it was in the chatroom), encouraging me 'not' to believe the things that others would teach or write.
One of the great things about 'life on earth' is that when you begin to 'like/appreciate/respect' someone, it's hard to really believe they're 'stupid' just because they believe something to which you're extremely opposed.
"Wuuf's big brother"
-
Gambit37
- Should eat more pies
- Posts: 13720
- Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 1:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
- Contact:
Re: mind droppings
Hmmm... well, while it's possible to respect someone you don't like, you can't really like someone you don't respect.MasterWuuf wrote:One of the great things about 'life on earth' is that when you begin to 'like/appreciate/respect' someone, it's hard to really believe they're 'stupid' just because they believe something to which you're extremely opposed.
As for thinking someone stupid because they hold different views... that's generally not very nice, agreed, but there are some exceptions. Anyone believing the Flat Earth theory for example.
-
MasterWuuf
- Arch Master
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
I think there can be argument in there as well, as the way in which it creates life may not be the way we might most commonly think of it. A sperm after all is life of it's own. So then it wanders it's way to an egg and the two combine, not creating a new life, but a more a joining to make a more complex life form. So, while the statement my testicles contain life may be accurate, the penis itself has no life giving power.
Beware the idea of your penis being a magic wand.. next thing you know you'll be doing your harry potter impersonation in public with it and they'll lock you up!
Beware the idea of your penis being a magic wand.. next thing you know you'll be doing your harry potter impersonation in public with it and they'll lock you up!
Masterwuuf: Interesting, I can't even remember having it put that way. I rather thought my point was just not taking things to literally.
PaulH: Greetings to a colleague. You know, now we autotheists are at least two. Well, two of different confessions of our common religion of course, but that's the nature of things
PaulH: Greetings to a colleague. You know, now we autotheists are at least two. Well, two of different confessions of our common religion of course, but that's the nature of things
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
-
MasterWuuf
- Arch Master
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Way Down Here, Louisiana
Whatever you meant, it was definitely a friendly gesture.Lunever wrote:Masterwuuf: Interesting, I can't even remember having it put that way. I rather thought my point was just not taking things to literally.
PaulH: Greetings to a colleague. You know, now we autotheists are at least two. Well, two of different confessions of our common religion of course, but that's the nature of things
As far as 'gods' go, the 'porcelain' god is the one that ALL must 'bow to' at the lowest times of our lives.
(unless you're into dry heaving, of course
)"Wuuf's big brother"