Religion Man rides dinosaur to protest creationism

Second Summer

Second Summer

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Reaction score
8,608
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
23_egersund.jpg

After a trip with the ferry from Bergen to Stavanger we started bicycling. First a short trip to Bore. Next day we did a longer strech towards Egersund. The following day was the longest and hardest over the mountains from Egersund towards Flekkefjord. One day was spent going from Flekkefjord to Kvinesdal and the walley of Saron. On Monday we arrived in Mandal. And finally we ended the journey in Kristiansand downtown on Tuesday. The trip is a protest against the dogmatic religious education of children.
Click to expand...
http://markusmoestue.no/index.php?/news/trip/ (Markus Moestue's blog)

Markus Moestue is a graduate student at Bergen's Art & Design College. The trip went straight across Norway's Bible Belt area.

If you're NOT in the UK, this URL might actually work:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140815-painting-with-light

If you ARE in the UK, you can also read about it here - includes pictures, but Norwegian text:
Syklet fra Stavanger til Kristiansand på dinosykkel - kultur - Dagbladet.no
 
Last edited:
I believe in evolution,but maybe the teaching of it can be a bit dogmatic too? So we have found one mechanism for life to develop, it doesn't mean there aren't other mechanisms, some maybe being supernatural.
 
Blobbenstein said:
I believe in evolution,but maybe the teaching of it can be a bit dogmatic too? So we have found one mechanism for life to develop, it doesn't mean there aren't other mechanisms, some maybe being supernatural.
Click to expand...
Well, I think we can agree that creationism, which states that the planet is approx. 6,000 years old, is not a sound hypothesis. There are other religious ideas that seem less incompatible with current scientific knowledge. I agree that there is at least one credible alternative explanation to the origin of life on Earth. Panspermia is the hypothesis that life came to our planet on one or more meteorites in the form of "extremophile" bacteria, i.e. bacteria that could survive the vacuum, extremely low temperature and the radiation present in space for a very long time.
 
panspermia just puts back the problem of how life started.

But isn't it dogmatic to tell kids that life definitely had a scientifically based origin?

Many people have religious beliefs, and I can see why they don't want that drilled into their kids' minds.
 
Blobbenstein said:
panspermia just puts back the problem of how life started.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it does provide an alternative explanation to how evolution has progressed.
But isn't it dogmatic to tell kids that life definitely had a scientifically based origin?
Click to expand...
Probably. But I don't think that is what science teachers actually teach children. They would (or should) present it as e.g. "this is what most scientists believe" or "this is what the scientific evidence suggests" etc. That would be the most "scientific" way of phrasing it anyway.
 
How dinosaurs fit into the creationist argument ...

Dinosaurs never existed which is why no one has actualy ever seen one.

Despite the fact that dinosaurs never existed dinosaur bones do exist though.

The reason that dinosaur bones do exist even though dinosaurs never existed is as cunning as it is simple.

God planted dinosaur bones, to be discovered by man at a time of his divine choosing, as test of the faithfull.

Dinosaur bones are thus proof that God created the world on two main counts:

1. Only the one who created the world could possibly have planted dinosaur bones so deep within it.

2. If there were no God then WTF explains the existence of dinosaur bones when dinosaurs never existed?


And there's a brief insight into the insanity I was tortured with throughout my whole childhood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dropkick and Dedalus
Indian Summer said:
Probably. But I don't think that is what science teachers actually teach children. They would (or should) present it as e.g. "this is what most scientists believe" or "this is what the scientific evidence suggests" etc.
Click to expand...
yes, science teachers saying "there is strong evidence that one mechanism for the development of species is survival of the 'fittest' mechanism", would be fine, IMO.

I suppose calling the survival of the fittest mechanism 'evolution' maybe a mistake; yes the life is evolving, changing, etc, but survival of the fittest, is just one of the mechanism, IMO.

A supernatural mechanism maybe when two gamete cells come together, how the DNA combines to form new DNA...I think that could be supernatural, I think because of my cellular consciousness beliefs.
 
why can't religious people just believe that god created evolution? problem solved.
 
Katrina said:
why can't religious people just believe that god created evolution? problem solved.
Click to expand...
I think some do, but I guess then you can't believe all the stories in the Bible literally. It means you have to interpret some of what is said. I think that somehow doesn't appeal to certain segments of the Christian population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clueless Git
Indian Summer said:
I think some do, but I guess then you can't believe all the stories in the Bible literally. It means you have to interpret some of what is said. I think that somehow doesn't appeal to certain segments of the Christian population.
Click to expand...
Anyone who believes/states that the Bible is non errant either hasn't bothered to read it, is a liar, or is delusional.

The Bible is filled with inconsistencies, and has several contradictions within it.
One of the quickest and easiest to point out is the 3 different versions of the 10 commandments - Two of them are very similar (Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21) the third version (Exodus 34:12-26) is radically different.


(My view)
The Bible is a work of man that has been edited many times over the years. As such it is a good study guide, but you need to follow your heart and do what feels right, not what someone says the Bible tells you to do.
-I feel that the golden rule should be everyone's starting point (even though it isn't in the Bible). Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
That's a good golden rule DK, but sometimes I think we should treat people how they treat us.

But that doesn't necessarily break your rule...if you want to be treated badly if you behave badly.
 
Last edited:
Blobbenstein said:
That's a good golden rule DK, but sometimes I think we should treat people how they treat us.

But that doesn't necessarily break your rule...if you want to be treated badly if you behave badly.
Click to expand...

You can't be a ****-head to a ****-head without becoming a ****-head, Blobbers.

If becoming a ****-head would make another ****-head happy that would be like sacrificing your own happiness (****-headery is not a happy state?) to bring happiness to another.

As ****-heads hate other ****-heads becoming a ****-head would bring no happiness to another ****-head though.

For that reason I believe that being a ****-head to a ****-head is really, really dumb.
 
I think whether we turn the other cheek, or not, depends upon the situation.

Here's a quote I kindof like:

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

Mahatma Gandhi
 
Blobbenstein said:
I think whether we turn the other cheek, or not, depends upon the situation.

Here's a quote I kind of like:

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

Mahatma Gandhi
Click to expand...

Yuss, Gandhi did seem to believe that being a violent ****-head is better than being a cowardly one.

I'm interpreting that one on the basis that people who aren't ****-heads don't have violence in their hearts in the first place, btw.
 
Top Bottom
Back