Re: Re : Creationism in Museums and Schools
No worries, It only took the enlighted ones atleast 1800 years to figure out that the Bible were to be taken entirely literally intead of mostly allegoral.Originally Posted by makaikhaan
Call me crazy, or maybe just a religious softy, but I always rather interpreted the creation story(well, ya know, the 2nd one) as a general parable about how God gave man life, and man turned from God. Rather than a specific and exact account of actual events. Plus, I was always a bit miffed that Cain suddenly got married, yet the only other people who had been created, if we are to take it literally and exactly, were his father and mother.
It's aslo funny that the first group to come to the conclusion that the earth needs to be much older than about those 10.000 years gets almost no mention at all. Those damn geologists.
That theory claims that we go through all the previously evolutionary stages, not that there's some remnant development (aka forming legs and then remove them).I was not being sarcastic. More importantly, I remember it now!
'La théorie de la récapitulation'. Which, if there is a benevolent God, hopefully simply translates as 'theory of recapitulation'. Which is now considered an erroneous biological theory.
Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.
It would be simular to claiming the Lamarckism is correct because it actually does seem like some traits caused by environment does get inheirited.
Reply With Quote
should be the second ones up against the wall when the revolution comes -- right after the lawyers. Bunch of simpering know-it-all rockheads.
Bookmarks