"Dr Vincent Smith, from the Natural History Museum, London, said: 'Lice are like living fossils. The record of our past is written in these parasites." No. The record of our past is written in the bible. "Study of insect DNA shows that lice evolved more than 65million years ago." Study of the bible shows that lice were created perfect much less than 65 million years ago and then became imperfect. And this isn't guesswork; the day they and everything else became imperfect and started decaying was written by an eyewitness - the man from whom we are all descended - whom we know as Adam. The 65 million-years-ago history is false. It never happened. This scientist started with a pre-conceived world-view and interpreted his finding through this. But he has ignored the written account preserved in the bible and has subscribed to an imagined history. Adam has put his name at the end of the account in thre first book of the bible, and it's his 'written record.'"
Yet again it seems that the science is more interesting and fascinating the Bible. Oh, and it's a lot more likely to be right.
"The Bible is crammed from end to end with stories of temptation, interdiction and chastisement. A forbidden fruit hangs from a tree on the very first page, and as we go through we are given more terrible lessons on how greed is punished and lust accursed until we reach the full, final and insane damnations and ecstasies of St John's Revelations, having passed through wilderness and desert trials, locusts, honey, manna, ravens, sores, boils, plagues, scourages, tribulations and sacrifices. Lead us not into temptation. Get thee behind me, Satan. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."
"The Bible is crammed from end to end with stories of temptation, interdiction and chastisement. A forbidden fruit hangs from a tree on the very first page, and as we go through we are given more terrible lessons on how greed is punished and lust accursed until we reach the full, final and insane damnations and ecstasies of St John's Revelations, having passed through wilderness and desert trials, locusts, honey, manna, ravens, sores, boils, plagues, scourages, tribulations and sacrifices. Lead us not into temptation. Get thee behind me, Satan. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."
Carl Sagan has done some great things for humanity. I have met many people who first became interested in astrophysics and astronomy thanks to his TV shows.
He suggested taking what is perhaps the most iconic photograph ever taken, Pale Blue Dot.
Carl Sagan has done some great things for humanity. I have met many people who first became interested in astrophysics and astronomy thanks to his TV shows.
He suggested taking what is perhaps the most iconic photograph ever taken, Pale Blue Dot.
The Guardian today published an article titled 'Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death''. This is a bit of a shocking headline, as it implies that doctors without religious beliefs are actively harming their patients.
The article itself tells a different story "A patient who wanted their life prolonged at all costs in the event of a terminal illness, or did not want it prolonged, should make sure they had a doctor who was in sympathy with this." This is essentially common sense, it just so happens that atheist doctors seem more likely to put quality of life over sanctity of life (which if they were treating me, I'd be pretty happy about).
Perhaps the thing I find most worrying though is last paragraph: "The most religious doctors were significantly less likely than other doctors to have discussed options at the end of life with their patient." Not discussing these issues with a terminal patient is, in my view, a neglect of responsibility.
The Guardian today published an article titled 'Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death''. This is a bit of a shocking headline, as it implies that doctors without religious beliefs are actively harming their patients.
The article itself tells a different story "A patient who wanted their life prolonged at all costs in the event of a terminal illness, or did not want it prolonged, should make sure they had a doctor who was in sympathy with this." This is essentially common sense, it just so happens that atheist doctors seem more likely to put quality of life over sanctity of life (which if they were treating me, I'd be pretty happy about).
Perhaps the thing I find most worrying though is last paragraph: "The most religious doctors were significantly less likely than other doctors to have discussed options at the end of life with their patient." Not discussing these issues with a terminal patient is, in my view, a neglect of responsibility.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
