12th May 2010

“Since I don't expect a lesson about the birth of Jesus to include discussion of sex and fertilisation without Joseph's sperm, I don't expect to discuss the belief system of creationism in a science lesson.”

Laura Roberts

34 Responses to “12th May 2010”

  1. Michael Says:

    That reminds me of one my favorite pieces of Biblical absurdity: that Jesus’ line of ancestry is traced through Joesph. Joseph wasn’t his bloody father, if you feel like believing that story. Not to mention that it’s told two different ways in two different places.

    That’s Biblical inerrancy for you!

  2. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    Well, the sperm belonged to somebody. And Joe was, well, a pretty trusting guy.

  3. Michael Says:

    Swinging in Bethlehem? Kinky.

  4. solomon Says:

    Jesus is the son of only the woman, Mary. He has no father. This is logical because the first man has no father.

  5. CaptainZero1969 Says:

    You’re saying Mary was a hermaphrodite, Sol? I’ll admit I hadn’t considered that possibility. It explains a great deal. Thanks. Not sure what you mean about ‘first man’. There wasn’t a first man unless you believe the silly creation myths.

  6. solomon Says:


    I did’nt say anything regarding Mary was a hermaphrodite. Mary is pure female. Hermaphrodite needs sexual contacts to reproduce but Mary did’nt.

    By “first man ” I’am refering to the first human that exist that is Adam.The existence of the first man is no myth. This is pure simple. What will become of you now if your great great grand father doesn’t exist or if he was gay? (sorry granpa). But this exception of born without a father applies only to Adam & Jesus.

  7. PEB Says:

    Solomon – only last week you referred to “Cavemen”. So are you saying Adam came before neanderthal man?
    Maybe the bible/quran insists Mary was a virgin because the writers were publically sexually repressed (but privately sexually perverted).

  8. Atheist MC Says:

    The Qu’ran insists Mary was a virgin because whoever wrote it (or Muhammed if he really proclaimed it) was essentialy plagurising the old and new testements with some convenient revisions.

    To the quote: I don’t agree entirely. Whilst creationism has no place in a science class, I think querying a story about parthenogenesis in humans during R.E is perfectly fine.

  9. solomon Says:

    Peb & Atheists MC,

    Your comments contain just lousy bashing without substance that should be willingly ignored.

  10. PEB Says:

    Lousy bashing? Which came first – Adam or neanderthal man?
    It’s a simple enough question.

  11. Devout Atheist Says:

    The real difference can easily be explained by just reading this thread. Free Thinkers can separate science from mythology. Zealots always seem to put the two together.

  12. solomon Says:

    Peb, If Adam is the first man, of cause he came earlier than any other man.

  13. Atheist MC Says:

    So how long ago was that then Solomon?

  14. solomon Says:

    The exact time has not been brought upon my knowledge. Only God knows.

  15. PEB Says:

    “If Adam is the first man, of cause he came earlier than any other man.”
    …but Adam was not a neanderthal man. He looked like us. Are you saying Adam was first, then we took an evolutionary step backwards to cavemen (was you’ve previously admitted existed)… and then us?
    Come on! – it doesn’t make any sense does it?!

  16. robb fentonr Says:

    women are astounding entities…but they are not miraculous. they do not conceive , gestate, or deliver children with out the first step of fertilization….it just doesnt happen. you’ve got to prime the pump.
    LOGIC PEOPLE, LOGIC.!! for pegnancy to occur you have to include the
    ” F ” word…………..and it’s NOT “FAITH”

  17. Atheist MC Says:

    Only God knows.

    Actually science has a pretty good idea.

  18. John Says:

    … and the only explanation that makes sense in the natural world and is in tune with how it all works. Unlike some dreamed up fairy tail “not been brought upon my knowledge” and explained away by the “Santa truth”.

  19. Michael Says:

    Adam was made from dirt. Eve was made from Adam’s rib. (Is Lilith in there somewhere?) Jesus was made from a woman’s egg and…what? Magic? Holy Ghost sperm? A turkey baster?

    Give me a ****ing break. Nobody over the age of four has any, ANY excuse for taking that tripe seriously. As soon as someone shows me that my DNA has dirt in it, I’ll consider not throwing any Bible I find in the recycle bin.

  20. Holysmokes Says:

    This quote seems fairly straight forward. Science class is for learning about science and acceptable scientific methods. Creation science and any of it’s spinoffs belong in a theology, or mythology class because they are not science. Seems fair to me.

  21. Michael Says:

    But that’s just it. Religion is science, it’s just bad science. There is a force that attracts all bodies in the universe; it is called gravity. There is a substance released by combustion; it is called phlogiston…oh wait. That’s false. There is a process by which plants utilize energy from sunlight; it is called photosynthesis. There is a force that causes men to rise from the dust, to impregnate women without sperm, and that also turns women into pillars of salt; it is called god…oh wait. That’s false!

    By all means, bring up god in a science class, and then see how easy it is to knock him down. He’s a holy house of cards.

  22. tech Says:

    Just popped in for a sec, interestingly enough the argument continues. I’m not surprised.Just took a quick perusal of the quotes.Which led me to this question for Peb. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

  23. Bad boy Says:

    the rooster ha haha. weird site

  24. PEB Says:

    Hi tech. You should know the answer to that one. According to Genesis it was the chicken. Of course that’s utter nonsense so I would refer you to http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm

  25. Holysmokes Says:

    Ahhh but Michael,

    The whole point is the we do not want religion taught in a science classroom, regardless of how easy it is to, “knock it down.” Take a typical 5th grade class. You have a teacher feeding religious “non scientific” explanations to the kids about biology. Do you honestly think the youngsters in this classroom are going to mount a significant defense against it? That’s where the problem begins. It’s up to responsible adults to prevent such foolishness before it erodes young minds.

  26. Michael Says:

    Yeah, I know that. You’re totally right, Smokes. I was being flippant (bad habit of mine). Because of the nature of religion and its adherents, one of the few things I hold “sacred” is the absolute separation of church and state. That includes, of course, the classroom.

    If religious wackos possessed the ability to actually be objective, and if they were a little less likely to phone death threats to biology teachers that point out the utter absurdity of religion’s claims then I would actually like to see religion addressed – shall we say “crucified?” – in science classes.

    I don’t see that happening for a long, long time. Like, geologically long.

  27. Alavi Hossain Says:

    i really wish the texas board of education wouldve considered this argument before making a decision to teach sciences as mere hypotheses. this argument has come up so many times in this forum it’s ridiculous to still see people trying to argue with it. there are so many things that should be taught if we are to tech the scientific “controversies”. alchemy, astrology, demonology, stork theory, etc. are all valid pursuits according to the opposition. let science be science, no religious overtones or implications have ever been needed for scientific advancements, and thats the way it’s always going to be. how does believing in a virgin birth or a prophet flying to the heavens on a horse help our understanding of the world in any way? we dont need these things to appreciate life or comprehend it. LEAVE IT THE F%$# OUT OF THE CLASSROOMS. you dont hear scientists trying to get the big bang theory taught in churches or synagogues on a sunday morning, so why should it be any different in an educational facility?

  28. Michael Says:

    I have got to stop coming here so much during work hours! It’s addictive.

    The devil keeps calling me back! 🙂

  29. solomon Says:

    When thinking of who creates the 1st. Design of things, the evolution theory is automatically refuted & becomes useless.

  30. Michael Says:

    Well, I certainly can’t see the evolutionary benefit of chronic incoherence.

  31. solomon Says:

    Hi PEB,

    Every happenings or phenomena does & should make sense if we have knowledge & guided to it. The nenderthal or caveman indeed should came after Adam. They are groups of people that oppose the complicated progress of civilisation & resort to settle in jungle or caves while most humans including your ancestors chooses modern civilisation. These caveman way of life must have a profound effect to their physical or biological appearance.
    For your info Adam does not only look like us but a perfect beautiful creation with an average height of 6o cubits or 27 meters.

  32. solomon Says:

    “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

    Dear PEB,

    Refering to the article you posted the author mention “So, the egg must have come first.”

    But he forgets where did the sperm that form the zygot came from?
    From nowhere?????

    Whaaaaa….ka ka ka…

  33. solomon Says:

    To all the Atheists,

    I’ve advice you many times. Listen to Gods words. Don’t listen to your lying scholars. How many occasions I have refuted their thoughts while they can refute non of mine.

  34. heitheist Says:

    “If religious wackos possessed the ability to actually be objective, and if they were a little less likely to phone death threats to biology teachers that point out the utter absurdity of religion’s claims then I would actually like to see religion addressed – shall we say “crucified?” – in science classes. ”
    If atheistic unfriendly people would stop torture poor christian people in many different ways, including killing I would agree that religion and education should be seperated.
    I don’t see that happening for a long, long time. Like, geologically long.in for a dime, in for a dollar, some stupid christians also do this to atheist.
    Although I wouldn’t call them chrisitans. I’d call them traditionalistic jackass stubbornly dangerous. 🙂
    🙂 I agree that religion is no science that is needed to live a healthy and happy live. Just … well you don’t care anyway.