I like the way that Adam and Eve were the first two people created, and nowhere in Genesis does it mention God creating any more people. And yet, somehow, Cain wanders around, finds an entire other land (Nod), and finds a wife. Somehow. And we're just supposed to accept that.
I like the way that Adam and Eve were the first two people created, and nowhere in Genesis does it mention God creating any more people. And yet, somehow, Cain wanders around, finds an entire other land (Nod), and finds a wife. Somehow. And we're just supposed to accept that.
What about that, Mr. jcc? Is that an idea worthy of consideration?
If the question were something more akin to "What are the habitat differences between carnivorous and non-carnivorous snakes," or something like that, things would be different. As it is, this experimental idea is leading to the needless death of a mouse. Scientific ethics demand that we minimize that sort of thing; if you can observe it elsewhere, there's no need to go about killing a mouse. You can study the differences between wild snakes.
Yeah, Pete! Well said. If it is necessary at this time for scientists to use animal test subjects for vitally important experiments, I can understand, but this "Science" Project *spits on the ground* is basically just "Kill a mouse. That's science, right?"
I like the way that Adam and Eve were the first two people created, and nowhere in Genesis does it mention God creating any more people. And yet, somehow, Cain wanders around, finds an entire other land (Nod), and finds a wife. Somehow. And we're just supposed to accept that.
That used to be one of main questions when I used to be a churchie.
Me: So if it was just Adam, Eve and such then what's up with Cain's chicka? Aunt: God made her for him. Me. They never told that story in the bible. That doesn't explain anything. Aunt: It part of god word!
...yeah. I was on the fast track of being like this.
I don't check in for a few hours and I come back to a bunch of homework assignments.
Essays for Joe:
* The idea of the geocentric universe, its history and validity
* Do the Pyramids or pyramid-shaped objects have any effect on the electromagnetic spectrum? What was behind the creation of this theory?
* Were the gods aliens? Describe the development of this idea and its strengths and weaknesses.
Essays for WhaleShark:
* Is it ethical for a science instructor to give an experiment to his students which involves a snake eating a mouse?
* What is the lahat hahereb hammithappeket of Genesis? What are cherubims?
* Where did Cain's wife come from? What was Nod?
This may take awhile. Give me time?
"The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy and preferred answers not because he is obstinate but because he knows others worthy of consideration."-- Allan Bloom
People used the same sort of argument to defend pyramid power, UFOs, and ancient astronauts in the 70s. They would say, "You just need to have an open mind to believe in such things. If you're too narrow minded to admit that such things can and do exist, then you must not be very well educated."
I can answer this part off-the cuff, though.
If people have used that Allan Bloom quote above as a way to justify their beliefs, they have misunderstood the difference between consideration and belief.
1. Not unless it's really necessary to make a point. A video would probably suffice to demonstrate that point.
2. A bunch of ancient nonsense that was used to explain things at the time.
3. Adam and Eve weren't the first people on the earth: they made that whole bit up.
Of course, if you can actually find solid answers to the last two, I'd be really interested. I'm pretty sure there's no spinning flaming sword surrounded by cherubims somewhere in the Middle East, but hey, I could be wrong.
Actually, I thought that the Garden of Eden was supposed to be somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Am I wrong about that?
I like the way that Adam and Eve were the first two people created, and nowhere in Genesis does it mention God creating any more people. And yet, somehow, Cain wanders around, finds an entire other land (Nod), and finds a wife. Somehow. And we're just supposed to accept that.
I asked a Rabbi about this. He said that Adam + Eve had a whole mess of children that weren't specifically listed. Cain's wife from the land of nod was just his sister who moved to the next town over.
I like the way that Adam and Eve were the first two people created, and nowhere in Genesis does it mention God creating any more people. And yet, somehow, Cain wanders around, finds an entire other land (Nod), and finds a wife. Somehow. And we're just supposed to accept that.
I asked a Rabbi about this. He said that Adam + Eve had a whole mess of children that weren't specifically listed. Cain's wife from the land of nod was just his sister who moved to the next town over.
OK, so either they're making it up, or we're the product of massive inbreeding.
I asked a Rabbi about this. He said that Adam + Eve had a whole mess of children that weren't specifically listed. Cain's wife from the land of nod was just his sister who moved to the next town over.
I don't check in for a few hours and I come back to a bunch of homework assignments.
Essays for Joe:
* The idea of the geocentric universe, its history and validity
* Do the Pyramids or pyramid-shaped objects have any effect on the electromagnetic spectrum? What was behind the creation of this theory?
* Were the gods aliens? Describe the development of this idea and its strengths and weaknesses.
I'll make mine easy for you too:
1. It was an idea that ancient fucks came up with because they didn't know any better. Now we have a better idea that conforms more closely with reality, so this idea is fucking worthless.
2. No. Drugs people ingested in the 70s and the motivation to make money off the gullible.
3. No. There were no gods. There were no aliens. The idea has no strengths. If I have to explain the weaknesses to you, you must be a lunatic.
Truly, if you spend even one second trying to convince anyone on this board that the geocentric theory, pyramid power, or ancient astronauts are ideas "worthy of consideration", you need professional help.
I found an interesting quote from Quote of the Day in my Google Reader today. I thought it would fit here. "Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." - Ashley Montague
This question pissed me off because they are pretty much the same thing. Evolution by mutation can be adaptation within a species. If some frogs are being eaten because they can't hop far enough, but then a few are mutated with slightly longer legs, that is both. It's evolution by mutation, and it is adaptation within a species, because those frogs will probably survive instead of the frogs with short legs.
One of the things that pisses me off about these questions is that most of them are already anwsered by science. Like It's from a rubber tree! Use the damn internet, stupid bible-thumpers.
It's from a rubber tree! Use the damn internet, stupid bible-thumpers.
This is a misleading answer. For the past several years over half the consumption of rubber in the world has been in synthetic rubber, which is not from the rubber tree.
2. How many shades of skin color are there? Use a paint scanner to test 100 people. 4. Statistical occurrence of giants, and midgets and dwarfs and giantism. Use Princess Flo, Goliath, and brothers. 18. Is intelligence influenced by physical attributes. i.e. are blondes "dumb" or does skin color influence intelligence? 65. What affects skin color? Is one color better than another? What was God's purpose in this?
O.K., maybe I am leaning a bit to the extreme since I watched all episodes of Zero Punctuation again within a 24 hour timespan. Of course, those are not blatant racist statements, but especially number 18 and 65 bother me because there the attribute to be researched (skin, hair, etc.) has nothing to do with the attribute it is being stacked up against (intelligence, social wellbeing, being "better" on whatever broad definitions you want) and even suggesting that it possibly could borders a bit to much on discrimination to be a science fair project.
Number 2 is of no scientific significance whatsoever and I really wonder what they are trying to teach by giving such a task to a child. Then again, that goes for a lot of those suggested projects.
Number 4 is pretty much equally stupid. While dwarfism and giantism can lead to health problems, it is no reason to pick them out for a useless statistical study that will probably only reinforce the notion that they are different from us.
It's from a rubber tree! Use the damn internet, stupid bible-thumpers.
This is a misleading answer. For the past several years over half the consumption of rubber in the world has been in synthetic rubber, which is not from the rubber tree.
I was talking about the natural rubber, and the people in the "science" fair don't probably know there are differet kinds.
Comments
Me: So if it was just Adam, Eve and such then what's up with Cain's chicka?
Aunt: God made her for him.
Me. They never told that story in the bible. That doesn't explain anything.
Aunt: It part of god word!
...yeah. I was on the fast track of being like this.
Essays for Joe:
* The idea of the geocentric universe, its history and validity
* Do the Pyramids or pyramid-shaped objects have any effect on the electromagnetic spectrum? What was behind the creation of this theory?
* Were the gods aliens? Describe the development of this idea and its strengths and weaknesses.
Essays for WhaleShark:
* Is it ethical for a science instructor to give an experiment to his students which involves a snake eating a mouse?
* What is the lahat hahereb hammithappeket of Genesis? What are cherubims?
* Where did Cain's wife come from? What was Nod?
This may take awhile. Give me time? I can answer this part off-the cuff, though.
If people have used that Allan Bloom quote above as a way to justify their beliefs, they have misunderstood the difference between consideration and belief.
Randomly Selected Pictures of 2007
Hmm, I wonder who that was.
1. Not unless it's really necessary to make a point. A video would probably suffice to demonstrate that point.
2. A bunch of ancient nonsense that was used to explain things at the time.
3. Adam and Eve weren't the first people on the earth: they made that whole bit up.
Of course, if you can actually find solid answers to the last two, I'd be really interested. I'm pretty sure there's no spinning flaming sword surrounded by cherubims somewhere in the Middle East, but hey, I could be wrong.
Actually, I thought that the Garden of Eden was supposed to be somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Am I wrong about that?
That might explain Kansas.
1. It was an idea that ancient fucks came up with because they didn't know any better. Now we have a better idea that conforms more closely with reality, so this idea is fucking worthless.
2. No. Drugs people ingested in the 70s and the motivation to make money off the gullible.
3. No. There were no gods. There were no aliens. The idea has no strengths. If I have to explain the weaknesses to you, you must be a lunatic.
Truly, if you spend even one second trying to convince anyone on this board that the geocentric theory, pyramid power, or ancient astronauts are ideas "worthy of consideration", you need professional help.
/Totally and utterly obligatory.
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." - Ashley Montague
One of the things that pisses me off about these questions is that most of them are already anwsered by science. Like It's from a rubber tree! Use the damn internet, stupid bible-thumpers.
4. Statistical occurrence of giants, and midgets and dwarfs and giantism. Use Princess Flo, Goliath, and brothers.
18. Is intelligence influenced by physical attributes. i.e. are blondes "dumb" or does skin color influence intelligence?
65. What affects skin color? Is one color better than another? What was God's purpose in this?
O.K., maybe I am leaning a bit to the extreme since I watched all episodes of Zero Punctuation again within a 24 hour timespan. Of course, those are not blatant racist statements, but especially number 18 and 65 bother me because there the attribute to be researched (skin, hair, etc.) has nothing to do with the attribute it is being stacked up against (intelligence, social wellbeing, being "better" on whatever broad definitions you want) and even suggesting that it possibly could borders a bit to much on discrimination to be a science fair project.
Number 2 is of no scientific significance whatsoever and I really wonder what they are trying to teach by giving such a task to a child. Then again, that goes for a lot of those suggested projects.
Number 4 is pretty much equally stupid. While dwarfism and giantism can lead to health problems, it is no reason to pick them out for a useless statistical study that will probably only reinforce the notion that they are different from us.