Mingle2 - Online Dating
Imagine what I could do with the money...
Author Archive for XanderPage 2 of 4
Ain't this rich. Over at the Rapture Ready forums, a bizarre twilight world, we learn that Mormonism is just an American version of Islam, as shown by this list:
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
Ain't this rich. Over at the Rapture Ready forums, a bizarre twilight world, we learn that Mormonism is just an American version of Islam, as shown by this list:
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
1. "Holy" Cities - Muslims venerate Medina where Mohammed was born, and Mormons venerate Palymyra where Joseph Smith grew up. Also, Salt Lake City is to the Mormons what Mecca is to Muslims - the "promised" land.
2. Founded by a "prophet" - mohammed for islam, Joseph Smith for Mormonism. Both of these men were born poor and were uneducated when they invented their religions.
3. Additional "Scripture" that overrides God's Word - Koran for muslims, Book of Mormon, D&C, and other "revelation" handed down through "prophets".
4. Both require the wearing of all-white, special religious clothing for certain religious rituals.
5. Both have believed in the concept of "religious war" and have raised religious armies to fight these wars.
6. Strange Dietary laws for both religions, including forbidding of alcohol for either religion (and this rule is routinely broken by both religion's practitioners, as well).
7. Both of them attempt to establish Theocracy wherever they are by taking over the government, which they do by flooding a town with residents of their religion - this goes for both Muslims and Mormons. Examples - Muslims in Lebanon do this, and Mormons in California and Arizona and Idaho do this. Also, both religions have already established huge theocracies (i.e. Saudi Arabia for muslims, Utah for Mormons).
8. Both are based on paganism.
9. Both consider Jesus as "important", but they both also lower Jesus to be lower than the One True God.
10. Polygamy is accepted in both.
11. The founding prophets of both not only had many wives, but they both married young girls as well.
12. Both religions believe that there will be sex in the afterlife and it will be a reward
13. Both religions have buildings and rituals which they exclude "outsiders" from."
What I found ironic is how easily a lot of these could be applied to many other Christian or religious denomination:
1. Holy Cities: Jerusalem.
2. Prophets: Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, etc. Poor and uneducated? You decide.
3. New Testament is often considered to override the Old Testament. How else do we avoid the stoning of Sabbath breakers? (Exodus 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death.
4. Special clothing: I seem to remember special clothes for christenings, weddings and perhaps we could even consider the crucifix a special piece of religious apparel.
5. Holy Wars: Oh come on! Crusades.
6. Strange dietary laws: Okay, forbidding alcohol and allowing alcohol are raised somewhere in the bible, but I can't remember where. Goat in its mothers milk anyone? (Deuteronomy 14:21) "You must not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother's milk". Seashells? (Leviticus 11:12) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
7. Theocrazy: Washington DC for evangelicals. How else would Bush have got in, unless he had the votes of the Religious Right? Plus, since then there have been all kinds of crazy faith based initiatives, for example abstenience only sex-ed.
8. Pagan roots: Horus, Dionyses, Mithraz. The pagan roots of Christianity is stamped all over it.
9. No Gods but me: Now I'm not sure where Evangelicals stand on the Trinity, but the Catholics sure have a strange idea of a ONE true god.
10. Polygamy was accepted by the early prophets, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon of the Old Testament as well.
11. Virgins: Oh come on again! (Numbers 31:18) 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves' And this is from Moses himself.
12. Sexy Heaven: Now I'm unsure about what Evangelicals do think about heaven, but I doubt it's any less strange or perverse.
13. Kicked out of church: Again I don't know the particulars of this, but I'm sure that there are some people they would turn away, for example gays, atheists, etc.
Irony, eh?
If there are any mistakes, I'd appreciate corrections.
N.B. Theocrazy is an intentional mistake, I thought it was appropriate.
If you live in Britain, then at 9:00am next monday (the 18th), you can listen to Hitchens talk about his latest book, 'god is not Great: How religion poisons everything', on Radio 4's 'Start the week'. If you're not in Britain, you should be able to find it on the BBC website for at least a week after broadcast.
If you live in Britain, then at 9:00am next monday (the 18th), you can listen to Hitchens talk about his latest book, 'god is not Great: How religion poisons everything', on Radio 4's 'Start the week'. If you're not in Britain, you should be able to find it on the BBC website for at least a week after broadcast.
Well, yes. I know it has been a while since I last wrote anything. But it has been a hectic past couple of weeks, so you must forgive me. But anyway, onto the post.
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
Well, yes. I know it has been a while since I last wrote anything. But it has been a hectic past couple of weeks, so you must forgive me. But anyway, onto the post.
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
Rereading Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea', which I have in the glorious illustrated edition, I came across a short section on Leaf-cutter ants. These ants it seems are the true original farmers, beating us by around 50-65 million years. They use an interesting system of ant-fungus mutualism, whereby the ants actively cultivate the fungus, much like the way we cultivate corn, wheat or any other crop plant. The fungus obviously gets the benefit of protection deep within the ant's nest, and they also get their nutrients brought to them. They have become so dependant on the ants, that they can no longer survive without them.
But what is the benefit to the ants, I hear you cry? Well, each day a host of big ants stream out of their nest across the rain-forest floor. Their goal; to collect leaves and other organic matter. Once collected, the big ants pass the plant matter to a smaller ants, who tear up the leaves. These are past to even smaller ants who chew the leaves further. This continues until the leaves become a fine paste which is then spread onto the fungus. The fungus breaks down the plant matter in a way the ants cannot. The ants however can harvest the most nutritious parts of the fungus.
But it doesn't stop there; they even have their own fungicides. You see, an entire beneficial fungus plantation can be wiped out by an infestation of fungi which attack their fungus. This is where the fungicide comes in. The ants have a thin powdery layer of a bacteria called Streptomyces. This bacteria produces compounds that kill off invading fungi. But the fungi can evolve resistance to the fungicide, in much the same way pests evolve resistance to our pesticides. But handily as the bacteria is also living, and thus also subject to evolution, it can mutate, keeping its ability to kill the unwanted fungi. We could do well to learn from this, as Zimmer puts it, "In other words, ants are using the laws of coevolution to their advantage, while we end up turning them against us".
Sources:
1) Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, p 204-207, Carl Zimmer, ISBN 0 434 00909 I
2) Wikipedia, Ant-fungus mutualism
3) Wikipedia, Leaf-Cutter ants
I have now enabled comments for all people, regardless of whether they have a blogger account. A few rules though. Comments should be relevant to the post, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Just sheer hate-mail will be removed and posted elsewhere for mine (and others) amusement. Your comment may be removed at my discretion (though I will try to avoid this). Sorry to sound Orwellian about this, but I want a bit of decorum on this blog. Many thanks.
I have now enabled comments for all people, regardless of whether they have a blogger account. A few rules though. Comments should be relevant to the post, and all constructive criticism is welcome. Just sheer hate-mail will be removed and posted elsewhere for mine (and others) amusement. Your comment may be removed at my discretion (though I will try to avoid this). Sorry to sound Orwellian about this, but I want a bit of decorum on this blog. Many thanks.
Yes I know this is the third Guardian link in as many posts but this is a truly interesting, if some what disturbing article. Written by Harry Kroto, winner of a Nobel prize for chemistry, in today's Education supplement he paints a sad indictment of the level of science teaching in Britain today. I won't say much more than that as you should really read the article in it's entirety. Hopefully it will be of interest.
Link:
* Original Article
Link:
* Original Article
Yes I know this is the third Guardian link in as many posts but this is a truly interesting, if some what disturbing article. Written by Harry Kroto, winner of a Nobel prize for chemistry, in today's Education supplement he paints a sad indictment of the level of science teaching in Britain today. I won't say much more than that as you should really read the article in it's entirety. Hopefully it will be of interest.
Link:
* Original Article
Link:
* Original Article
In today's Guardian there was a nice article about Darwin's letters. A new database of over 5,000 of Darwin's correspondence has recently gone live, and these letters reveal a uniquely personal look at one of the giants of science. Among the many letters include support for a friend who's son had Scarlet-Fever,
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
In today's Guardian there was a nice article about Darwin's letters. A new database of over 5,000 of Darwin's correspondence has recently gone live, and these letters reveal a uniquely personal look at one of the giants of science. Among the many letters include support for a friend who's son had Scarlet-Fever,
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
"I grieve to hear about the Scarlet-Fever: my poor dear old friend you are most unfortunate. The tide must turn soon... Much love much trial, but what an utter desert is life without love".
On a lighter note he shows incredible humility at his own mistakes. After asking naturalist John Lubbock to make observations about clovers and bees to test his theory about the evolution of bees, he wrote an abashed letter apologising for the data which turned out to be useless,
"I do so hope you have not wasted any time for my stupid blunder - I hate myself, I hate clover and I hate bees".
Also, to put to rest once and for all the talk of Darwin's support of racism and slavery we have his views on the Tories (Conservative party of Britain),
"I would not be a Tory, if it was merely an account of their cold hearts about that scandal to Christian Nations, Slavery".
The site can be found at here, and it looks like an interesting diversion for those who have read the 'Origin of Species', or any of Darwin's books, or even those just interested in a Victorians' take on his own time.
Links:
* Original article
Well of course I had heard of Jerry Falwell before the news of his death. Even a brief visit to the countless sites on evolution and atheism will undoubtedly mention Falwell. The notorious creationist and evangelical was well known for his attacks against minority groups, especially the gay and lesbian community.
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
Well of course I had heard of Jerry Falwell before the news of his death. Even a brief visit to the countless sites on evolution and atheism will undoubtedly mention Falwell. The notorious creationist and evangelical was well known for his attacks against minority groups, especially the gay and lesbian community.
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
But frankly I do not care for him. I will not feign sorrow for his passing. But neither will I gloat at it. He is dead, and the dead cannot answer the challenges of the living. There are many criticisms that can, should and have been made against him. But I think the best thing that can be done is to forget him. He is (hopefully) a sad, bigoted blip in a greater push towards a better and more reasonable world.
There are enough like him, who are still alive, that we should worry about, and not waste our energies on him. Consign Falwell to the rubbish heap of other such nonsense spewers and no-one in twenty years will remember him.
He wasted his life hating those who were different. Hopefully he and his views will be soon be forgotten, so we can all say truthfully "Falwell...who?".
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
