Blue Fish Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Levis! How did you guess?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Don't eat sharkfin soup, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Don't eat fin soups at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I refuse to come back as an animal. I love being a woman and I plan to be a woman over and over. Though being a cat isn´t bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Fish Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Don't eat sharkfin soup, people. Why did this remind me of Alice in Wonderland? Where the Turtle Sings "Turtle soup"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 a dingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 So you can eat a baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 One of the perks, I recon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floydaholic Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I wouldn't want to come back as an animal, I like being a human, because it's so much better than being an animal, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulGirl Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 the german philosopher immanuel kant argued that the difference between man and animal was that man had the ability for rational thought whereas animals are confined to acting based on their urges and instincts. this is one of the many reasons it's great to be human! although of course sometimes it's nice to let the urges take over...! but i'd like to come back as a butterfly - start off as a fat little caterpillar, go through metamorphosis, feel the freedom of flight and have a transient experience of life and light, flitting from one beautiful flower to another. i have a strong affinity with butterflies - every year on my grandfather's anniversary i see a red admiral butterfuly, sometimes on the altar at his memorial mass. and red admiral butterflies have turned up at other funerals i've been to. also one year on my grandfather's anniversary my mum was out on the skelligs, a few miles of the coast of kerry in the middle of the atlantic and she saw one. it's not reincarnation as they are obviously different butterflies every time. but for me it's a sign that my grandfather's spirit is still out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floydaholic Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Wow, that's a really cool story!!. I totally agree with your 1st paragraph there. I'm a Creationist, so I believe that humans arn't animals anyway, but are seperate entities to animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Human= animal+a brain that works (in most of the cases). My two cats have a soul, an innocent sweet little animal soul. I know for sure, their god told me once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I believe that humans arn't animals anyway, but are seperate entities to animals. I am having to strain every sinew to resist my almost overwhelming urge to dispute this assertion in painful detail. I'll spare us all the anguish...this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Did YOU click on the signature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I didn't know what you meant for a moment, but suddenly I see. No I haven't. Is is scary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Beyond words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I got as far as page 24; only another 970 to go! Seriously, though; if one could "cut & paste" from this source, one could have a field day. The "scientific logic" used to disparage the findings and reputations of the 18/19th century enemies of Creationism is utterly risible. (Those cussed philosophers who never set foot in a science-lab! Frauds and charlatans all!) The fact that x000 years of circumcision still hasn't caused Jewish males to evolve without a foreskin! Does that disprove/undermine the basis of evolutionism??? Two hundred years ago Lamarck attempted to demonstrate a theory of "acquired inherited characteristics" by cutting the tails off nineteen generations of white mice, yet the last generation of his sample still boasted lovely long tails. SURPRISE! His experiment was a failure! Any f**kwit could challenge an experiment of such limited scope. To do so proves nothing one way or another. Scientists used to insist the Earth was flat, you know? Science has moved on a bit in the last 250 years... I could go on, but it might sap the strength of us all. (What a load of guff, really...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiggsUK Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I love this kind of thing. Sure, we don't yet know where the first spark of life came from or whether the soul exists, but to deny that we are 'animals' is beyond my comprehension... As for chopping the hubba-bubba off Jewish kids, well... You may as well argue that because we drive cars and haven't evolved a velour hide and hub-caps... you get my drift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hark!.....I think I hear a voice of wisdom from the wilderness.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 I got as far as page 24; only another 970 to go! Seriously, though; if one could "cut & paste" from this source... actually - you can you only have to click on the text cursor symbol at the top first (the one right besides the 'hand') and I stopped reading it after they claimed that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was a book about Evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Well, he believes in Adam & Eve, so why not believing in Hitler? I guess I will follow Darryl´s steps and take a holiday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 To be fair, in his "Evolutionary zeal", Darwin was a sympathiser of the "Eugenics" movement (motto: "the survival of the fittest"), which was also an underpinning principle of the Nazis, so there is a parallel there. However, it's pretty crucial to recognise the distinction between scientific fact/theory, the hypotheses that people extrapolate from such facts/theories and the dubious purposes to which such hypothetical extrapolations may be subsequently applied by those with "other agendas". That is to say: just because Darwin reached certain conclusions on the basis of his research, regarding evolutionary theory, does not mean that the ethical/philosophical standpoint he subsequently adopted (which could be interpreted as advocating the principle of Eugenics) should be seen as supportive of the actions of other factions, carried out in the name of "Eugenics". There is a distinction. One could be of the opinion that "survival of the fittest" has been an underpinning force in the continued existence of certain species at the expense of others, and in the evolution of certain species to adapt to a changing environment (over a long period of time, ie not the time it takes to breed 19 generations of mice, or cultivate bacteria from agar), but that does not necessarily mean that one has to advocate the same principle as an excuse forsuch atrocities as the killing of people with congenital physical/learning disabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 (edited) All I am going to say is that anyone who thinks that people evolved from animals is truly ignorant about science. I don't think anyone truly knows how we came to be, but you know, believing in evolution takes as much faith as believing in creation. You either believe that all life evolved from lesser beings over millions of years or that an invisible entity in the sky created everything on earth in a week. Either way, you are alive here and now and what you do with the gift of life is what should matter Edited June 13, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 with the possible exception that there are quite a few solid proofs for the one, and very few (none?) for the other... to me, 'believing' in Evolution is like 'believing' in Newton's Laws and... anyone who thinks that people evolved from animals is truly ignorant about science people ARE animals, the only difference might be a philosophical one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now