Remember, God designed us to grow old and die.
(From SaintGasoline, via My [Confined] Space).
UPDATE: On orders from my cephalopod overlord, I hereby retroactively dedicate this post to the cretins behind Expelled.
Remember, God designed us to grow old and die.
(From SaintGasoline, via My [Confined] Space).
UPDATE: On orders from my cephalopod overlord, I hereby retroactively dedicate this post to the cretins behind Expelled.
Ouroboros 
That’s freakin’ brilliant!
Crystal clear!
Perfect. But how about those human tracks laid down next to the dinosaur fossils? They sure got us with that one LOL. – Jerry
Wow aren’t you clever. After all everyone knows that humans are so great and all knowing that there couldn’t be anything bigger or wiser than us in the whole world. Duh. It’s so much more likely that the universe, the earth, and life itself, were formed in the same way as putting a bunch of random parts in a box and shaking it until a Rolex watch forms, as opposed to something beyond our five senses and three dimensions. Stupid religious, conservative, no-nothings.
QED
Carson – What happens if you try repeating the experiment an infinite number of times? And who said this place is a Rolex? For all we know, this is one of the trials where the Timex got smashed to bits but the tiny battery leaked onto the LCD, causing an interesting smear…
[…] {found at Ouroboros} […]
“And who said this place is a Rolex?”
Richard Dawkins, for one, who said that the entire universe appears to be designed, but scientists have to remind themselves constantly that it was not. Because, you know, that’s inconceivable.
Remember, it’s always easier to mock that which you do not understand than to study and learn it.
(Mis)quoting Dawkins in support of ID just makes you sound like a jackass.
Christopher Taylor- easier to mock than to study and understand? Are you being ironic, or do you completely not understand the whole argument from ignorance thing that ID rests on?
Obviously our Universe is awe inspiring!
It would be wonderful if we didn’t feel the need to fight about the as yet unknown, when there is so much we can all agree upon and share in together.
Could we perhaps agree to accept that we live in an “Interactive Multidimensional Universe” that leaves allot of room for uncertainty and discovery?
As we come to know more about the nature of Consciousness & Intelligence within the Creative Dynamic of the Universe, maybe we will begin to see ourselves and our experience as intrinsically connected without the persistent feeling of separation that predominates our current outlook, attitude and relations.
Someday we may find our way past the labels that divide us, to healthier ways of thinking and expressing ourselves that will bring us closer together in our common humanity.
Those who feel the need to believe they have all the answers are simply fooling themselves, perhaps because the uncertainty is too frightening to accept.
It seems to me that only by letting go can we find our way to the next level of deeper understanding and meaning.
Just a thought!
Nice. Resorting to name-calling and sheer arrogance. That’ll learn ’em. Ironically, your entire method of “educating the heathen” seems to be based on the very tactics you’re claiming the other side possesses.
Each side could learn a lot from the comment by “Darien”. He simply sees joy in the unknown, excitement in the mysteries of the universe. He sees the obvious arrogance from anyone who errantly claims they now know it all. The incredible irony behind the self-satisfied analogy in seeing correlation regarding our ancestors that supposedly “knew it all” is fraught with the delusion that NOW we know everything. No conceivable way that we are wrong now–this time we’re right. The question any premature sage should ask himself before going on his epic journey to teach the ignorant masses the truths he alone possesses, is will the wisdom he professes be passed to his descendants because of him or because of the masses response to it? Would you bet your life on the knowledge you profess? The wisest philosopher admits that the more he learns, he then realizes the less he knows.
Can champions of intelligent design accept many evidences and findings of the scientific and archaeological community and yet their faith in scripture and prophetic counsel still hold ground? Is it possible for adaptation and so-called microevolution to be proven while the idea of macroevolution and the heretofore absurd idea of man being effectually the same as a piece of slime being merely an unproven concept? The answer–no matter how loud you yell or how primitive your vituperations may be–is yes.
On the 200th anniversary of the birth of two important men, I don’t think it too prudent to celebrate more the man that shares our nation’s heritage, held firm to principles of liberty, freedom and made among many other crucial decisions the incredible daunting task of leading its nation in war to keep it together, to issue an extremely unpopular and daring proclamation of freedom for a race of man, and in the end gave his life for the ideals he stood for.
I’m a scientist. By definition, that means I don’t think we know it all — if we did, there would be no reason to work in science.
There’s much to discover in the future, and we face that future with an open mind, knowing that someday we may have to discard a theory that now seems useful.
So let’s discard the idea that I’ve made a claim we’re all-knowing.
But that refers to *theory* — statements, or systems of statements, that make useful predictions about the world. Intelligent design has not yet made such a prediction. It is therefore not a theory, and is therefore outside the realm of science.
Why mock it, then? Because of its claim to be equivalent to science. Because of its very dishonesty: ID is an untestable religious precept (that life was created by some entity) masquerading as science. Its adherents frequently, though not always, maintain a scientific front while secretly advocating a return to Biblical or scriptural creationism (q.v. William Dembski). They routinely obfuscate the distinction between science and religion. They’ve lied about the relationship between ID and the church. (q.v. the Pennsylvania case). They’ve manipulated state and local governments in an attempt to have their ideas taught in schools.
Hence I stand by the position in the cartoon: ID represents the intersection of politics, religion and stupidity. It’s not name-calling; I’m not yelling; it’s a fair description of the situation.
A few more things:
The idea that evolutionary biologists believe human beings are “the same” as a “piece of slime” is a canard. We obviously find many wonders in human beings; we just don’t think they’re any less impressive because of the fact that all life on earth is related by common descent.
The evidence of macroevolution is everywhere, specifically in the relationship between phylogenetic trees based on DNA sequence and those based on morphology. A great deal of biology, including much of medicine, is based on findings deeply rooted in these truths — so yes, I would bet my life on it, every time I go to the doctor.
I have no idea what Abraham Lincoln has to do with this debate. Obviously I’m a fan, but I don’t think it gets you anywhere. Both of us benefit from freedom, even if that’s sometimes (or in some cases, often) the freedom to be wrong.
Hrm, great diagram, although it’s flawed – the Religion circle should be a sub-set of Stupidity.
Oh Kurt, when will you learn that we couldn’t care less what fairytales idiots believe. You deserve to be mocked and nothing more.
Were are the Democrats because they can be just as anti-science …just asking.
[…] sketch is my variation on the original found now at ouroboros (by saintgasoline.com) Related Posts: Office Etiquette Prohibition on Politics and ReligionOffice […]
is that not a zeppelin sign?
In a nutshell
I just happened upon this graphic while performing an unrelated search, and was quickly consumed by the discussion thread.
I have 2 questions: 1. what was the motivation behind this graphic? (feels a bit political) and 2. as you obviously oppose ID, what are your beliefs surrounding the creation of the universe? Is is a single theory? perhaps evolution? or maybe another study on the topic?
Please know that these are honest questions aimed at learning something.
Creation of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. Cosmology is the theory about the origins of the universe while evolutionary biology explains the origin of species from a common descent etc.
It’s ironical that the ID “theory” is completely lacking in intelligence…
Intelligent Design is not stupid at all! Scientists who advocate ID have some amazingly clever arguments against evolution. Even if you may disagree with them you have to admit, they’re good. Although they are similar, ID is not the same as creationism.
Nope. We don’t have to admit that. The arguments are scientifically worthless, because they make no predictions. They’re neither clever nor good.
I’d say that the Universe itself (and all aspects there-of) are a perfect parallel for God.
The evidence for my statement:
1) Universe + God: No one knows the Origin
2) Universe + God: Alpha and Omega
3) Universe + God: Omnipresent
4) Universe + God: Omniscient
5) Universe + God: Infallible
6) Universe + God: Work in Mysterious ways
7) Universe + God: Extremely ordered despite chaotic appearances.
8) Universe + God: Impossible for a person to perceive to full glory.
It is my belief that given the universe is creating itself and consuming itself, simultaneously springing into existence and out of it all by the force of doing each, that the Universe is God-Like in Origin, and assuming all previous statements about the Parallels being true- I can only conclude that the Universe itself is God, and that we are he, she, it, they, ourselves, and no one.