Actually, the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure
School book in use at local schools calls the story of Genesis a myth. What you would expect to ensue in East Tennessee ensues.
17 Responses to “Actually, the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 5th, 2010 at 10:41 am
“On page 319 of the text, the authors describe creationism as “the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.””
I can see why the guy is angry. His myth says it took 6 days then on the seventh they rested due to union rules. A major typo.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Fear not. The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief is nigh at hand.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:51 am
B Smith beat me to it, dammit.
April 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT! There are those who say that our rights under the 2nd Amendment are a myth. Shouldn’t we be more cautious about disparaging others’ beliefs?
April 5th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
A science book should be sciency. From that perspective, most religion is a myth.
April 5th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Was wandering why the did not include islam in that sentence. Somebody has no balls. Guess the appeal of getting ones head chopped off has fallen out of popularity. Lets go after the jews and christians since they will not kill us for insulting them…
April 5th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Maybe we should apply the standards of leaving religion out of science textbooks and leave it in social studies classroom.
April 5th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Hmm. Science can’t prove how creation occurred, whether from a big bang or Genesis. Since there is no methodology to prove any of those theories they all stack up in the same bin. Some meet the presently known empirical data more neatly than others, but without proof they remain theory.
I don’t see why there should be a reason to disparage one man’s theory over another. Why don’t they list all religious based theories as “myths?” Or categorize religious theories as such.
You’d think in these PC times they’d try not to make any sub-sector of the population angry when it is avoidable. (Well unless your intent is to disparage their beliefs.)
April 5th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I call BS. Everybody knows it’s turtles all the way down!
I know, I know, that still doesn’t explain that pesky Fifth Elephant.
Regards,
Rabbit.
April 5th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Actually, TP clearly stated that the discworld was the creator’s joke on the universe.
As for the rest, science has disproved literal creationism (as in 6000 years ago), making the bible a myth. The question of how much of a grain of truth is at it’s center is subject for social/religious class, not science ed.
April 5th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Creationist stupidity, and knee-jerk pro-liferism, will doom the Right to a perpetual minority party.
Resurrection? Immaculate conception? Enough with the paranormal fairytales, people! We have a socialist agenda to repeal…
April 5th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
My kid had a public school textbook last year that said the Old Testament was the history of the Jewish people, a statement that does not reflect the general consensus of historians.
April 5th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
I’d be happy with keeping religion out of the classroom.
The religion of atheism is being peddled as science, and that’s what pisses off conservative Christians.
When I was a kid evolution was taught, but without the abiogenesis aspect. Our science teacher told the class we really didn’t know how human life began on Earth.
This was in one of the most religious and conservative areas in the country, and nobody had a problem with that.
I suspect most Christians would be OK with returning to those thrilling days of yesteryear, but atheists would scream bloody murder if their dogma isn’t taught and labelled science.
April 5th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I was raised a traditional Roman Catholic, going to Latin Mass, and I attended a small southern liberal arts school that used to be a Southern Baptist seminary. I have been listening to the pseudoscientific BS of Creationists and Intelligent Designists and fundamentalist christian know-nothings for over four decades. They cannot use the scientific method of that monk, Gregor Mendel, or that other fellow, Francis Bacon, worth a damn.
They just don’t understand and adamently refuse to accept that if a theory is not testable against anull hypothesis, it ain’t science, it is faith. It is not a problem confined to religious believers. See Globull Warmenation, the recent years, for details of this problem cropping up in an actual scientific endeavor.
When one looks up at the stars, or into a magnified drop of water, one can understand the belief of others, and have one’s own belief in, that which is greater than oneself and beyond one’s puny understanding. Most scientists understand that. That the religious pseudoscientists don’t understand the incompatibility of using the scientific method on a belief is sad.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Abiogenesis is anti-scientific hysterical religion, as far as I’m concerned.
That said, I think it would be funny as hell if that book would have read, “Scientific evidence refutes the Qu’ranic myth that the universe was created by Allah.”
April 6th, 2010 at 7:49 am
All those turtles and elephants had to be conceived somehow therefore the Big Bang.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:56 am
@ Nylarthotep
Actually there is pretty good scientific evidence for the Big Bang, such as cosmic background radiation, the expanding universe etc. Scientists didn’t pull these theories out of their asses, they based them on evidence. That’s the methodology used to decide which theories are valid and which aren’t. If you wan’t absolute proof, well it’s hard to prove anything absolutely, but when they mapped the cosmic background radiation and compared it to the model predicted by the big bang, it was accurate to within 0.005%. That’s hardly equivalent to a several thousand year old creation story with no supporting evidence.