When Beastiality is a "Good" Thing...
Ever since priests with flowing robs were replaced with scientists with flowing white lab coats, a unique religion has emerged over the last century. With natural selection and survival of the fittest, we have a "scientific" view of the origins of life. We are so smart now, we know things that were impossible to know while religion ruled the day. Check out the latest infallible "study" by "scientists" who have a "new idea" of how human life evolved:
You May Be A Monkey's Uncle
If you understand the moral issues behind this, you'll see that we humans are in essence a hybrid race caused by beastiality. The text tells of the biped humanlike "Toumai" mating with the quadriped not so human Chimpanzees. In this case, beastiality is a good thing! Where would we be as a race if our great, great, great, great (5,840 times removed) uncle Tom Toumai had controled his sordid and abherant sexual desires while a flirtatious mob of sexy female Chimps passed him by. If we are simply animals and evolution is still taking place, who's to say that beastiality will not benefit our progeny millions of years from now. Look at all the marvelous possibilities.
Humans cross breeding with horses could revolutionize track and field; cross-breeding with sheep could literally turn the garment industry upside down: people literally could grow their own clothing! Could you imagine Martha Stewart knitting a sweater with her very own wool? How about this--cross breeding with dogs would make us our own best friend; no more need for therapy! The sky is the limit as to the good beastiality brings!
One thing may be problematic though: hybrids are sterile and cannot reproduce. DOH!!
Ah, a minor technicality!!! Our priests in white lab coats will certainly figure that out. Until then, let the de-evolution continue!
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:52 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
The text tells of the biped humanlike "Toumai" mating with the quadriped not so human Chimpanzees. In this case, beastiality is a good thing! Where would we be as a race if our great, great, great, great (5,840 times removed) uncle Tom Toumai had controled his sordid and abherant sexual desires while a flirtatious mob of sexy female Chimps passed him by.--UL
Ye gods! There is so much wrong and uninformed about that paragraph, I don't know where to begin.
First of all the putative couplings between the chimpanzees and the humanoids is beastiality, since both, at the time, were "beasts." That humanoid was millions of years away from evolving into homo sapiens. And what may have gone on between the two was no more repugnant that when you discover that your female cat coupled with her son and produced a litter.
THEY. WERE. ANIMALS.
That far back, the humanoids didn't speak, their brain sizes were smaller than homo sapiens, they had just left their nests in the trees, and if you had seen them side-by-side, you probably wouldn't be able to tell one from the other.
You know, Sam, try reading some biology. It'll help calm your nerves and stop you from posting silly rants.
Shaw:
First of all, this post is a spoof of those relativists who are looking for reasons to excuse their lack of morals. Second, I'm spoofing the lengths the scientific community that will go to explain the origin of human life. They will avoid intelligent design like the plague, yet will entertain a theory such as this. I'm being incredulous.
As to my needing to chill by studying biology, I'm afraid that won't help, assuming I need help, which I don't. Besides, biology is the study of life. This type of life doesn't exist. So it can't be studied. What can be studied are the theories scientists consider "plausible," which is another way of saying what makes scientists clap.
All I know so far is that if there is a theory that excludes ANY intervention by a diety and that is completely materialistic in it outlook, that is what makes scientists clap. What makes them stop clapping is the presence of mystery. What we need are more silent scientists.
They will avoid intelligent design like the plague, yet will entertain a theory such as this. I'm being incredulous.
ID is religion. Evolution is science.
What we need is more silent scientists?
Would you have preferred your airplane or, say, an MRI machine designed by a priest or a scientist?
Think about that the next time you fly.
You are anti-science and that's a real shame.
This type of life doesn't exist. So it can't be studied.
It most certainly can. And it is being studied through strands of DNA, which can reveal what happened millennia ago. You don't read about science, it is obvious.
There is more mystery in science than any religion has to offer.
Science deals in reality, what is real, the laws of nature. If you drop something out of a window, it drops to the earth every time, at the same speed. Gravity. One of the 4 forces of nature.
Religion deals with supernaturalism and faith. Faith is having a belief in something with no evidence for that belief.
Shaw:
No, no, no.
1. ID is NOT a religion. It is a modern teleological argument for the existence of God. It binds no one to believing and putting into practice religious observance. Strike one.
2. Do I want planes designed by priests or scientists? DUH! Now you definitely have lost ground. You'r treating me like an idiot. Strike two.
3. I'm anti-science. Now you're just plain silly. I'm against science overstepping their anal-retentive bounds and canceling out or redefining religion. Strike three. Your out.
There is more mystery in science than any religion has to offer.
You know, I think you're right! Evolution requires more faith than ID.
Faith may not have "physical" evidence, but there is certainly a LOT of historical evidence. Oh, that's right, you don't believe anything is true unless it can be demonstrated. That's right. I keep forgetting you assume the skeptic's position. Have fun proving who are your real parents.
Science deals in reality, what is real, the laws of nature. You mean material reality. Science has yet to identify what comprises the human mind. It will be hard, since it is an immaterial incorporeal reality. Plus, it's self-evident that our minds exist along with ourselves.
3. I'm anti-science. Now you're just plain silly. I'm against science overstepping their anal-retentive bounds and canceling out or redefining religion. Strike three. Your out.--UL
UL,
Your words belie what you say. You've used snarky, insulting words each time you refer to science or scientists, you put quotation marks around scientific, scientists, and study in your post. Why?
You say in your post that a "unique religion has emerged over the last century." What on earth are you referring to? And yes we DO know things that were impossible to know while religion ruled the day.
When religion ruled the day,for one example, the Church put Galileo Galilei under house arrest for asserting that the earth moved around the sun.
When religion ruled the day, people were not allowed to study cadavers in order to learn anatomy. Church said no.
When religion ruled the day, it prohibited women from using pain killers during child birth.
When religion ruled the day, it was against innoculations and vaccines, because that made Man play the part of "God" who gives and takes away illness.
In 1885 a smallpox epidemic broke out in Montreal, Canada. Almost everyone was vaccinated except the Catholic population there. When the authorities tried to force vaccination on their Catholic citizens, they were met with opposition that threatened to become violent. Rather than explaining to their parishioners the benefits of vaccination, the catholic clergy tolerated and in some cases even encouraged the behavior of the laity. A priest of St. James Church said in a sermon that, "if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is because we had a carnival last year, feasting with the flesh, which has offended the Lord;...it is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox." One religious newspaper even went further, telling the Montreal Catholics to take up arms rather than submit themselves to vaccination. Instead the catholic ecclesiastical authorities in the city called on their people to make certain devotional exercises, to hold a procession with an appeal to the Blessed Virgin and to use the rosary as specified. Needless to say the Catholic population in Montreal suffered many needless deaths from smallpox until the proper measure was finally enforced
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/medicine.html#simpson
There is absolutely no place for a "deity" in any scientific discussion or research. Deities are supernatural, science doesn't deal with supernaturalism.
Science at this time doesn't know everything about how the human brain functions, but as in the past, as more information arrives, science will understand more about brain function.
I'm not advocating what you rightly identify as religion overextending its boundaries. However, as you may not know, what the Church condemned was Galileo's implication that the Scriptures had errors when it describes the sun moving, or the sun rising or falling, etc. Galileo overstepped his bounds as a scientist to cast judgment on the Bible. You may see this as justifiable. The Church doesn't.
You also include as Catholic, the preaching of one Catholic priest in Montreal during a small pox outbreak. It doesn't define the Church at large; you are using this local situation and apply it univerally. Your making a hasty generalization.
Post a Comment
<< Home