Jump to content

What animal would you come back as?


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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

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 :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...