DAY OF THE DEAD
Today is the Day of the Dead, and for this momentous superstitious occasion, do I have a treat and a half for you.
These photos are of the Sedlec Ossuary, a Czechloslovakian Christian chapel, and the entry reads thusly:
"Henry, the abbot of the Cistercian monastery in Sedlec was sent to the Holy Land by King Otakar II of Bohemia in 1278. When he returned, he brought with him a small amount of earth he had removed from Golgotha and sprinkled it over the abbey cemetery. The word of this pious act soon spread and the cemetery in Sedlec became a desirable burial site throughout Central Europe. During the Black Death in the mid 14th century, and after the Hussite Wars in the early 15th century many thousands of people were buried there and the cemetery had to be greatly enlarged."
"In 1870, FrantiĊĦek Rint, a woodcarver, was employed by the Schwarzenberg family to put the bone heaps into order. The macabre results of his effort speaks for itself. Four enormous bell-shaped mounds occupy the corners of the chapel. An enormous chandelier of bones, which contains at least one of every bone in the human body, hangs from the center of the nave with garlands of skulls draping the vaults. Other works include piers and monstrances flanking the altar, a large Schwarzenberg coat-of-arms, and the signature of Master Rint, also executed in bone, on the wall near the entrance."
The morbidity, the utter dark fascination with the face of death runs deeply throughout the literature of religion: Christian history is rife with cracked bones, spilt blood, and the egotistic masturbatory fantasy of an afterlife gone horribly awry.
There is no afterlife: it is guesswork based on zero facts, vastly incomplete data sets, and no evidence at all.
Once we put away the nostalgic grisly toys of yesteryear, and bid farewell to our collective adolescence (long since gone), we as a species can finally mature, and move upwards as one, to reach for the stars, and ascend our feral nature.
Till the next post, then.
30 comments:
Christians are VERY morbid people. Yes indeed!
every addams familyesque
Goodness.
I'm going to make some bone armor and a bone sword, perfect for halloween. jk
Humans can think up the most bizarre things to do. I was just reading yesterday about these Mayan descendants who bury their dead, and then dig them up 3 years later and put their bones in decorated boxes, then come back year after year on the day of the dead for the ritual cleaning of their loved one's bones. *shiver*
That is one of the most macabre things I've ever seen. What kind of individual can comfortably work with human bones as an art medium? He obviously took great pains to create designs that elaborate. That stuff totally creeps me out. The human race never ceases to amaze me.
I'll bet the congregants all get boners in that chapel. ;)
Thanks for the peek at the mastubatory morbid.
um..er.... I'm not creeped out by bones at all. In fact I don't understand the attitude. As an artist and teacher I have used them frequently.
A recent prohibition against having "human remains" in the Art Museum where I teach caused me to loose my skeleton; a very useful tool when one is teaching Life Drawing. It really pissed me off.
Bones are bones; they're beautiful.
AND, I guess I'm very weird becuase I think it would make more sense to have the skull of a deceased relative or friend in a place of honour rather than a jar of mixed ashes.
May I donate my skull to you K? (if no one else wants it)
toomany:
every addams familyesque
I missed that wordplay. D'oh!
karen:
I'll bet the congregants all get boners in that chapel. ;)
You naughty, naughty girl. ;)
remy:
May I donate my skull to you K? (if no one else wants it)
'Alas, poor remy, I knew him well. A man of infinite jest!'
Sho-ah. Why not.
um..er.... I'm not creeped out by bones at all. In fact I don't understand the attitude
I understand that. They are simply bones after all.
I think it's more creepy that any animal in the natural world would play w/the remains of their dead. Are we the only ones?
I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.
It wasn't until I clicked on the images to enlarge them that I realized they were made of human bones!
Christianity has a truly weird past.
(and some would say an equally weird future)
I can hear the apologetics now. "But they are not 'real christians'." How come people let them get away with that excuse?
I keep trying to explain to 'anonymous daniel', who posts on my blog, that there is no "mortal test" for christianity, it is a religious belief system.
Believers need to accept that there are christians who do crappy, stupid things. They need to be honest about this.
What I mean to say is that if I hear a believer say once more that they are not "real christians", I will barf..
Remy I think what creeps me out about the bones is the huge amount and the fact that the displays are 100% human. I don't need something like that reminding me of my mortality. I think it's just ghastly. A few skeletons and the like don't really bother me that much. IMO this particular artwork is most distasteful.
I think the sculptures are interesting, actually.
Bones are just bones, whether they're from people or animals.
It would be creepy if someone were killing people to get the bones to use in such a way.
But found material is just that.
Having human content doesn't make it sacred or worthy of any high honor.
I think what makes the christians morbid to me is in the purpose of how they use the bones and what it stands for, for them.
As a realist artist myself, bones and human anatomy are important. BUT, the church and christians are not using them for that reason nor do they appreciate anatomy for arts sake. It is a morbid reminder that it is death that they all worship.
Say no to crhist,
That is an excellent point. Intent makes quite a difference. Within the context of the cannibalistic church it is repugnant.
Ka, "Alas, poor remy" LOL. very good.
Pasta,
I'm just wondering about your reaction to human bones. I used to feel more the way you seem to but it now seems to me to be cultural conditioning and that is not something one moves out of easily.
Karen, What's up with all the nipples and boners inhabiting your wonderfully prurient brain?
remy
What's up with all the nipples and boners inhabiting your wonderfully prurient brain?
Hehehe. Like KA said, I'm a naughty, naughty girl! (On paper anyway.)
Or at least one of my alters is, and I tend to let her out a lot, cos I LIKE her!
Amy
I'll have to get back to you on the voices thing. Probably by email. Don't want to clog up KA's blog. But it might be a couple days; things went FUBAR around here, and damage control will be in effect for a bit.
Anything in particular you wanted to know?
"The morbidity, the utter dark fascination with the face of death runs deeply throughout the literature of religion: Christian history is rife with cracked bones, spilt blood, and the egotistic masturbatory fantasy of an afterlife gone horribly awry."
Atta boy. Let's not mention the many positive's Christianity has contributed to the world that far overshadow the few "Looney's" that claim faith but by example do not put it into practise.
"There is no afterlife: it is guesswork based on zero facts, vastly incomplete data sets, and no evidence at all."
Oh that's right, you have proven beyond all doubt that nothing awaits us after death. Hmmmm sounds like the evolution claim. Never proven that's just the way it is because secularism with it's incomplete data and everchanging hypothesis says so.
You ask a Chrisitian to prove God. Why don't you prove He does not excist? Prove there is nothing after death.
You do realise that your claims sound identical to the one's you renounce coming from the other side of the spectrum?
Beepbeepitsme,
If I may speak as a Christian (and no, not one who has all the answers)
"Believers need to accept that there are christians who do crappy, stupid things. They need to be honest about this"
Agreed (and I do accept this unfortunate reality) but is it fair to label ALL of them because of the few idiots out there who malign the name of Christ? I do not think you would consider it fair if I, for example, labeled all atheists as "morons who do crappy and stupid things" when I know in reality that would be a broad and unfair brush to paint them with.
"there is no "mortal test" for christianity, it is a religious belief syst
So is evolution but I bet you would vehemently deny that. I know KA does. :)
"I can hear the apologetics now. "But they are not 'real christians'." How come people let them get away with that excuse?"
Christians have a "litmus" test we conduct. We call it the Bible. There are many aspects that are black and white in the scriptures. For example, the Bible clearly states that adultery is a sin. (Keeping in mind that all sins are forgivable, except one) But if someone says they are a Christian yet "justifies/rationalizes" this sin and defends it by saying that God is OK with it then it is obvious to the Christian that the individual is more about serving his/her self indulgence as opposed to what God says.
We can also look at the KKK who "claim" they are Christians. Well we know how they feel about anyone other then white people. Considering there are many black Christians they would violate the scripture that says in 1 John 4:20
"If someone says, “I love God,” but hates a Christian brother or sister, that person is a liar; for if we don’t love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?"
In instances like these I would definitely be thinking the statement you speak of (they are not really Christians). The Bible tells us that the true Christian will (not be perfect) display the fruit of the spirit. ( love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,) Many Christians live this out in their daily lives and are forgotten about in the midst of those who would malign the name of Christ. If one lives in outright rebellion to God but claims he is a Christian he/she is a liar. What else can I say but that "it is written" and that is why you may hear that statement used.
Now as far as these "Bones" go, I really have no idea what to say about them. It is strange, bizarre, and I think disrespectful of the dead. But hey, we had an "artist " up here with seven vials of his own semen and dead skinned rabbit's. He called it art, however, I would disagree and say that it was indeed morbid.
"What I mean to say is that if I hear a believer say once more that they are not "real christians", I will barf.."
Hope you have a large pail beside you (LOL)
ITO:
Atta boy. Let's not mention the many positive's Christianity has contributed to the world that far overshadow the few "Looney's" that claim faith but by example do not put it into practise.
Well, sadly enough, the loonies are consistently in the headlines. & track record speaks volumes.
Oh that's right, you have proven beyond all doubt that nothing awaits us after death.
Don't have to. Unless you got real eye-witnesses?
Hmmmm sounds like the evolution claim. Never proven that's just the way it is because secularism with it's incomplete data and everchanging hypothesis says so.
That sounds suspiciously like, "I know you are, but what am I?". There's nothing 100% conclusive in science: it's a work in progress.
You ask a Chrisitian to prove God. Why don't you prove He does not excist? Prove there is nothing after death.
Nope. That's your cross to bear.
You do realise that your claims sound identical to the one's you renounce coming from the other side of the spectrum?
Nope. My claim is that religion is a relic, an anachronism, a child's toy that should be relinquished.
I could give you all the evidence for evolution, but
A. That's not what the thread is about, &
B. You'd not listen anyways.
KAren
Sounds good, I'll be looking for your email and then we can get into details. I know how hectic things can get, so no worries, when you get arround to it.
KA
"Well, sadly enough, the loonies are consistently in the headlines. & track record speaks volumes."
Agreed. Which is why that would be your focus. The daily activities of food bank missions, free room and board for the homeless, the clothing of the poor, the addiction programs (yadda, yadda, yadda,) will not get mentioned because there is no scandal in that. (BTW they far outnumber the track record you speak of) I am simply trying to point out that there is far more "good" things to be said that will never get recognition. I understand how media works. Scandal=newsworthy.
"Don't have to. Unless you got real eye-witnesses?"
Right. The onus is on me. Nice double standard :)
"That sounds suspiciously like, "I know you are, but what am I?".
LOL! It is. I am not a big stiff. You know I like to mix up.....just a little.
"Nope. That's your cross to bear."
More double standards (Yawn!)
"I could give you all the evidence for evolution, but
A. That's not what the thread is about, &
B. You'd not listen anyways.
You are right that is not what the thread is about. BUT your evidence is circumstantial, hypothetical, and broken. And I do listen. We have been down this road. Every time I bring up "science" I am accused of the creationist/ID debate when I have not brought any of that in to it. I just present science that seems to contradict itself and quash your "religious" theory. :)
ITO:
Agreed. Which is why that would be your focus. The daily activities of food bank missions, free room and board for the homeless, the clothing of the poor, the addiction programs (yadda, yadda, yadda,) will not get mentioned because there is no scandal in that. (BTW they far outnumber the track record you speak of) I am simply trying to point out that there is far more "good" things to be said that will never get recognition. I understand how media works. Scandal=newsworthy.
True enough, but those newsworthy ones, oy gevalt! We’re constantly seeing people killing their kids because ‘god told them to’. We see all sorts, from the Iranian prez to our own (gawd told me to invade Iraq!), Jeb Bush & his ‘invisible warrior Chang’. There’s enough of a pattern to suggest that it not be our raison detre: you want to worship? That’s fine by me.
Just keep your nose out of telling folks who’re harming noone out of it.
Right. The onus is on me. Nice double standard :)
For the umpteenth time, no. Not a double standard. I’m the plaintiff, you’re the defendant. You claim there’s this omniscient, benevolent deity micromanaging our lives? Prove it.
More double standards (Yawn!)
Gimmee a break. Remember my car salesman point? You’re selling me a car, it’s up to you to prove it’s worth buying, not up to me to convince you it’s not worth selling.
That doesn’t prevent me from criticizing the car you drive.
You are right that is not what the thread is about. BUT your evidence is circumstantial, hypothetical, and broken.
Your case wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, & you know it. You demand eyewitnesses to an event where there could be NO such witnesses, whenever you’re effectively countered, you bring up the ‘vast scientific conspiracy’ folderol, you don’t even understand what speciation is, you don’t understand the difference between microevolution & macroevolution (there is none), I could go on.
And I do listen. We have been down this road. Every time I bring up "science" I am accused of the creationist/ID debate when I have not brought any of that in to it. I just present science that seems to contradict itself and quash your "religious" theory. :)
A few items:
A. You brought evolution into the discussion, not I.
B. I’ve rarely seen you bring scientific evidence into the fray.
C. When you do bring ‘evidence’, it’s usually some unrepresented example like your ‘chimps only have 93% DNA’ sample (on the cover of Time recently, the cover read “99% compatible” & showed the picture of a human baby & a chimp).
If science ‘refutes itself’ like you claim, the reality of the matter is, the pet theory gets scrapped. About 90 % of the time.
Besides which, wasn’t it you that said evolution is no threat to theism?
If you did indeed listen, you’d not be so quick to point a finger & cry ‘J’accuse’.
TIO
Agreed. Which is why that would be your focus. The daily activities of food bank missions, free room and board for the homeless, the clothing of the poor, the addiction programs (yadda, yadda, yadda,) will not get mentioned because there is no scandal in that. (BTW they far outnumber the track record you speak of) I am simply trying to point out that there is far more "good" things to be said that will never get recognition.
You bring this up as though Christians corner the market on good deeds. That is just not true. There is no need at all to be a believer of any faith to do good works in the world. But as I mentioned on your blog, as with the "In as Much Day," Christians DO go after press to let people know it is THEY who are doing things.
I get slick mailings about twice a month from "Christian" organizations, with their hands out for money. I see television ads and glossy magazine ads. These things cost a pretty penny, money better spent on the folks supposedly being "helped" than on high-end advertising.
Churches tend to be glitzy rather than simple anymore. People still dress their best to attend.
When folks give quietly, don't advertise, and their churches don't scream "Look at me!!", I might believe that they aren't just like the loonies that get the so-called bad press.
Karen
Ramen Sista!
KA,
" You claim there’s this omniscient, benevolent deity micromanaging our lives? Prove it."
For the umpthteen time you claim there is no God. Prove it! (this is just a stalemate)
"Gimmee a break. Remember my car salesman point? You’re selling me a car, it’s up to you to prove..."
Give you a break? Give me a break! I remember your car sales point and it still is a double standard. First off I am not trying to sell you anything. I say there is a God. You say prove it. Meanwhile you say there is no God and I say likewise, prove it! Only you don't feel inclined? That is a double standard. You base your claim on "belief", not evidence, and then put the onus of proof solely on the believer. Your car is harder sell then you realize.
"Your case wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, & you know it."
Doesn't help when courts are loaded down with deluded liberal judges.
"You demand eyewitnesses to an event where there could be NO such witnesses,"
Exactly my point. So people should simply "believe" what the evolutionists says based on hypothesis and theory. Hmmmm no eyewitness's and THIS should hold up in court? The arrogance of unsubstantiated theory continues to abound. The evolutionist is right "because he says so" without the burden of proof or eyewitness testimony but God must be seen. (LOL) More double standards. (oops I am not allowed to say that anymore)
"whenever you’re effectively countered, you bring up the ‘vast scientific conspiracy’"
WHAT! Get over your self.
" you don’t understand the difference between microevolution & macroevolution (there is none)"
There is no difference? Your kidding right? This would explain why we have one called micro and one called macro???? Because there is NO difference. Do you pick and choose which science you want to believe and discard anything else that scrutinizes your beloved theory labeling it "conspiracy science"?
Your right about one thing, we are getting way off topic regarding this thread. Now I do not know if I should honor my word first of posting against a conservative or if I should demonstrate the scientific difference between Micro and Macro. (You got me, your wearing me out :p )
"You brought evolution into the discussion, not I."
Apologies. I should stick to said topic. My intial intention was just make an analogy/comparison. I should have known better.
I’ve rarely seen you bring scientific evidence into the fray"
Ditto. I find a lot of what you bring as "evidence" is refutable. Not by me but by other respected members within the science community. I consider their word just as valid.
"When you do bring ‘evidence’, it’s usually some unrepresented example like your ‘chimps only have 93% DNA’ sample (on the cover of Time recently, the cover read “99% compatible” & showed the picture of a human baby & a chimp)"
Here we go again. Any valid science I bring is considered invalid when it challenges evolution (even thought it was the SAME guy, Dr. Britten, who discovered the 99% 30 years ago only to renounce his own findings) but someone else comes along and makes a statement that falls more in line to your liking and that makes it valid! Did you ever consider the possibility that some of the science you subscribe too might just be the "conspiracy" you are trying to avoid? (just a question, not meant to be taken as sarcasm)
"If science ‘refutes itself’ like you claim"
What would you call it? Science one day claims 98.5% then jumps down to 93% then jumps back up to 99% (maybe, I have not read this Time article you speak of) Actually sounds more like the flip flopping of a liberal :)
"Besides which, wasn’t it you that said evolution is no threat to theism?"
Actually I believe that was BF but I would share the same sentiment. It is no threat. Just like the evolutionist continues to believe the theory even when there is science out there challenging it's claims.
"If you did indeed listen, you’d not be so quick to point a finger & cry ‘J’accuse’."
Point the finger? I challenge the validity of the claims.
Karen,
"You bring this up as though Christians corner the market on good deeds."
You renounce them like they are ALL Fred Phelps! I actually disagree with you (big surprise) I think I was quite clear in pointing out that there far more good deeds performed by Christians that go unnoticed then the bad ones that secular media will only give attention to. What you fail to do is show me how I even suggested we "corner the market". In this case it was the Christians that were singled out and I was suggesting that Christians are to often marginalized for the few bad apples in comparison to the good deeds towards humanity they do perform.
BTW, are you aware of any Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, new age, etc. organizations who feed the homeless, clothe them, provide shelter on cold nights, get people treatment for their addictions, organize Christmas hampers for the poverty stricken families, visit the sick and the dying in the hospitable, forgive those who have killed your love ones and so on? Didn't think so. Boy we Christians are such a rotten bunch.
"There is no need at all to be a believer of any faith to do good works in the world. "
Agreed. Still don't see how I was "guilty" of saying the Christians are the only ones dominating in this area. I said it is the good performed by the devout Christians that is swept aside. Not because we need or deserve recognition but you sure are quick to jump on the ones who are obviously living a life that contradicts the teachings of the scriptures and paint all of Christendom with a very broad brush while dismissing the many more millions who live out their faith according to the teachings of Christ.
"Christians DO go after press to let people know it is THEY who are doing things."
Really? Maybe where you come from but where I come from a Christian could not beg enough for press and get it. It is only given when the press approaches. If it is positive it usually warrants a three line story on page 20. Scandals for one fallen down "brother/sister" will tend to last the week.
Personally, as far as I am concerned, God is the only one who needs to be aware of our good deeds. However it tends to get unnerving listening to people constantly bombard the Christian with constant negativity that eventually we tend to say "How come you never notice what is going on over here?". People are more concerned with how they can throw mud at us. Do Christians fail? Yes. Do they embarrass themselves and their public testimony? Yes. But that does not apply to the vast majority. Let God deal with those who shame His name.
"I get slick mailings about twice a month from "Christian" organizations, with their hands out for money. I see television ads and glossy magazine ads. These things cost a pretty penny, money better spent on the folks supposedly being "helped" than on high-end advertising."
I will not apologize for the actions of others but I will say I disagree with this from any Church. The scriptures tell us we are to rely upon God and the body (church) for financial stability. Sounds like the "Health and wealth" gospel mailings you are receiving. A theology I do not subscribe too. If a Church was asking for money that is "community" oriented then that is a different story. Asking money for themselves is actually rather tasteless and embarrassing. Our church mails out invitations to come and visit. That way it is up to the individual to make a choice. No strings attached.
If your ever out my way, you want to go to church?
"Churches tend to be glitzy rather than simple anymore. People still dress their best to attend."
LOL you have never been to one of my club's "Biker church" services. Even we get frowned upon by other Christians. If there is ever a service you might just appreciate it would be this one. Leather (patches) Harleys, a pulpit built out of motorcycle parts, and CCR/Neil Young music for worship with altered lyrics. I would also dispute that a lot of inner city churches do not subscribe to this "glitz" you speak of. Church can be had anytime anywhere. It does not require a fancy building to meet God. You can meet with Him in the shower if you like.
"When folks give quietly, don't advertise, and their churches don't scream "Look at me!!", I might believe that they aren't just like the loonies that get the so-called bad press."
No harm in extending an invitation. Even literature regarding salvation. But asking the public for money, well there I agree with you. Although keep in mind, there are many organizations out there doing the same thing. (United Way, UNICEF, etc.)
I don't think anyone is ever going to convince you otherwise but I can't stop myself from commenting on the notion that one should prove that god does not exist.
If you make an assertion that a being or an object exists it is encumbent upon you to offer some proof outside of a personal feeling. Offering the beauty of landscape or the word of the bible is insuffient.
If one tells me that there is an invisible bowl of pasta on the table I think there ought to be an offer to prove this assertion.
You're saying that there is a saviour out there who loves me and wants the best for me. That'd be good; so show me please.
TIO:
For the umpthteen time you claim there is no God. Prove it! (this is just a stalemate)
I would suggest very much that you go look up burden of proof as a logical fallacy - http://www.answers.com/topic/burden-of-proof-logical-fallacy
Give you a break? Give me a break! I remember your car sales point and it still is a double standard. First off I am not trying to sell you anything. I say there is a God. You say prove it. Meanwhile you say there is no God and I say likewise, prove it! Only you don't feel inclined? That is a double standard. You base your claim on "belief", not evidence, and then put the onus of proof solely on the believer. Your car is harder sell then you realize.
Here, & I quote”This is fallacious for two reasons: first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven.”
Also:
” Burden of Proof as a Fallacious Defense
A slightly different fallacy occurs when the challenger accuses the proposer of committing a burden of proof fallacy to direct attention away from the fact that the challenger is in reality proposing a different idea of their own. This situation often occurs as a result of a fallacy of the excluded middle, where the challenger believes that only one of the two proposed ideas can occur.”
Doesn't help when courts are loaded down with deluded liberal judges.
Yeesh, what an obsolete stale untruth.
Exactly my point. So people should simply "believe" what the evolutionists says based on hypothesis and theory. Hmmmm no eyewitness's and THIS should hold up in court? The arrogance of unsubstantiated theory continues to abound. The evolutionist is right "because he says so" without the burden of proof or eyewitness testimony but God must be seen. (LOL) More double standards. (oops I am not allowed to say that anymore)
You can cry foul as you please, but that’s bullshit, to put it delicately.
A. There’s mountains of forensic evidence, &
B. You claim your deity still exists today.
WHAT! Get over your self.
You do it all the time. No 1 listens to the ID’ers/creationists? It’s a conspiracy by the evolutionists. You invoke conspiracy all the time! See your earlier ‘liberal judges’ comment.
" you don’t understand the difference between microevolution & macroevolution (there is none)"
There is no difference? Your kidding right? This would explain why we have one called micro and one called macro???? Because there is NO difference. Do you pick and choose which science you want to believe and discard anything else that scrutinizes your beloved theory labeling it "conspiracy science"?
No, I do not.
The Wiki entry at answers.com states this:
” Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Within the Modern Synthesis school, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution. The process of speciation (is isolated populations) can fall within the purview of either. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.
Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:
It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.
However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.”
Consider yourself schooled.
Your right about one thing, we are getting way off topic regarding this thread. Now I do not know if I should honor my word first of posting against a conservative or if I should demonstrate the scientific difference between Micro and Macro. (You got me, your wearing me out :p )
See above.
Ditto. I find a lot of what you bring as "evidence" is refutable. Not by me but by other respected members within the science community. I consider their word just as valid.
Like whom? Behe, Dembski, Gish? Those clowns ain’t scientists. They had to go form their own ‘scientific community’. I haven’t seen anything ‘refuted’. I’ve provided you a buttload of links in the past. Enough that I can take a break at this point. NTM, on the left side, under ‘Evolutionary/other’, I provide a few of them.
Here we go again. Any valid science I bring is considered invalid when it challenges evolution (even thought it was the SAME guy, Dr. Britten, who discovered the 99% 30 years ago only to renounce his own findings) but someone else comes along and makes a statement that falls more in line to your liking and that makes it valid! Did you ever consider the possibility that some of the science you subscribe too might just be the "conspiracy" you are trying to avoid? (just a question, not meant to be taken as sarcasm)
Why, yes I have. However, when there’s a hoax in evolution, it gets debunked almost overnight. I find skepticism attractive inasmuch as it’s blaring honest, & tears a new 1 outta anyone who’s full of it.
What would you call it? Science one day claims 98.5% then jumps down to 93% then jumps back up to 99% (maybe, I have not read this Time article you speak of) Actually sounds more like the flip flopping of a liberal :)
Again, 1 man, even if he’s the originator of the concept, isn’t enough to rebut the scientific community w/o evidence. Maybe Britten’s flip-flopping? (Rational people SHOULD be able to change their minds, BTW. Stop demanding rigidity).
Actually I believe that was BF but I would share the same sentiment. It is no threat. Just like the evolutionist continues to believe the theory even when there is science out there challenging it's claims.
Again: THERE IS NO SCIENCE OUT THERE CHALLENGING ITS CLAIMS. ID will never be considered a science: it’s untestable, unfalsifiable, & a puerile effort at PR.
Point the finger? I challenge the validity of the claims.
Hey, you’re free to. Real evidence needs no apologist. Ain’t my fault you find the facts don’t fit in w/your POV.
I feel that I, personally, have offered more than enough facts & evidence to show you’re wrong on this matter. A certain degree of skepticism is good: even preferred. However, if I may be so bold, you should stop approaching the matter from the angle that it’s wrong, & rather, approach it from the angle of, “Does this work?” & check your biases at the door.
It’s how I came to my atheism, & I like to think that I approach all large ideologies in the same way.
TIO:
Here's more food for thought:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp_2.html
"While the results confirmed that single nucleotide substitutions did account for roughly 1.4 percent of the differences, in accordance with previous estimates, Britten also found that indels account for a further 3.9 percent of divergence. This gives a rough estimate of five percent difference, he said."
Also:
"We haven't observed a single indel in a [gene] to date between human and chimp," said Oefner. Therefore, the revised estimate doesn't alter the amount of DNA that holds information about our species. Humans and chimps still differ by about one percent in gene sequences, he said.
Nevertheless, "5 percent is probably closer to what people thought [the difference would be] a priori," said Nelson. Even the smaller figure of 1.5 percent is quite large across the three billion or so nucleotides that make up the human genome, he said."
&, to punctuate it,
"Researchers hope that studying the differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes could provide insight into language, intelligence, and other factors that define our species. To this end researchers are now in the process of deciphering the chimpanzee genome."
I may also note the following:
A. We are closer to chimps than mice are to rats,
B. Anything over 90% is good odds, &
C. Humans have 46 chromosomes, primates have 48. Human chromosome #3 turns out to be a fusion of 2 primate chromos.
Any questions?
Post a Comment