Jump to content

All Religions are not Equal


KaskadskyjKozak

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dunno, but if there is a God, he/she/it must be laughing its ass off over this circus chirade of logic, reasoning, and science.

 

-We would also like to express earnest appreciation to the RATE donors who provided the financial means to enable us to undertake 14C analysis of our own suite of samples.

 

What is a RATE donor? And does it have free will? Or is the foreknowledge that the research paper which it funds have predictable outcomes which support it creationist arguments invalidate their free will?

 

I don't have any answers, I just like to make fun of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, but if there is a God, he/she/it must be laughing its ass off over this circus chirade of logic, reasoning, and science.

 

Of course he's laughing his ass off. We're a bunch of monkeys in suits who somehow have convinced themselves that they hold an important, pivotal role in the universe.

 

"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." -- J.B.S Haldane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I want are articles in the standard peer-reviewed scientific literature that people can look up. Science. Nature. Journal of Geophysical Research. Something. Not some web site. Not some book published by the Institute for Creation Research. Some place where the author actually had the cojones to publish along side real scientists instead of hiding in the grey literature. I've seen plenty of controversial articles published before, certainly one creation-themed paper could slip past the peer review process.
Damn, here in the middle of all the spray I am reminded, my plans for this day included spending several hours in the Health Sciences Library.

 

I'd planned to be there already, and now its past 2:00! What happened? How was I distracted? Let's see...first I logged on to cc.com for a quick lurk, then checked on Spray. Next thing, I ran across something about KK getting his mushroom picked (by his grandfather?) and before I realized it I was wasting a perfectly good afternoon reading Seagawk upchuck a story about how the half-life of Carbon-14 just proves that the Grand Canyon was made in a day. Details escape me, because as I read onward through the mist I dreamed about how fucking cool it would have been to be there in a kayak when all the water came down. Enter the breaking wave, Foraker asks for data and references and expresses a preference for science journals when it comes to reading about science. Right then, my whole bubble bursts like the Colorado cutting through a continent in a second.

 

Shit, I'm outta here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science. Nature. Journal of Geophysical Research. Something.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying anything about creation or evolution here, but just a word of caution about scientific literature. Peer-review does not indicate infallibility, even in the highest level journals. Recall the S. Korean stem cell scientist who fabricated data in an already controversial subject area, and it made it in to Science! I don't know whether anything about cold fusion was ever published in peer-reviewed journals, but that could be another example of phony data. And that's just data, the most likely part of an article to be true. Conclusions about the data are even more open to fallacy. Anything new and revolutionary should be taken with a healthy dose of open-minded skepticism. This especially relates to the creationist-themed article on carbon dating, which may not even be peer-reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this thread was just a little more interesting than the "Mt. Hood" speculation threads. Predictable, for the most part, in its course by adherance to the driving force of a temporal framework necessitating an effort to perfect the rationale of cause and effect. The anthropomorphization of the notion of God. The literalization of allegory. The distinction of an infallible discipline performed by an entity whose perception and actions are known to be fallible.

 

Perfect, really, of this I have little doubt.

 

kinda wish I'd been here to play along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

 

It's that time of year again!!

 

x_lon_crucifixion_070406.300w.jpg

 

That reminds me. The Mecca Cafe and Bar in Queen Anne has a marquee sign in front that often has sarcastic political humor on it. A few Easter's ago, it said:

 

"Come in for Easter and get nailed" :grlaf:

 

More recently it seems to have been homeland-securitied or something since for a long time now it simply says "Come on in, beer on ice". :wazup:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...