ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4195
Latest Activity: Aug 15

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Neanderthals, Denisovans and ancestor X

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 7. 3 Replies

The evolution of work

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 12. 61 Replies

Has man evolved?

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 18. 5 Replies

The Probability Of Being

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by John Elder Jun 11. 4 Replies

Johns Hopkins Receives $125,000,000 to Fight Cancer

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 1. 2 Replies

A new theory explaining the origins of life?

Started by Donald L. Engel. Last reply by Donald L. Engel Mar 31. 5 Replies

Map of Archaic Ancestry

Started by Qiana-Maieev. Last reply by Joseph P Mar 29. 5 Replies

Homo Erectus food processing

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 19. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Jim DePaulo on December 17, 2010 at 2:54pm

How in hell did that get double printed??

Comment by Jim DePaulo on December 17, 2010 at 2:51pm

 

When I was a health inspector for Denver Health Department I had to inspect the facilities and practice surrounding the making of the "holy flesh".  It was a small (very clean) room in the basement of a residence for nuns.  The lady that produced the sacred biscuits was a elderly nun with hairnet and a white apron over her habit. One production device resembled an oversized notary stamp the others were a mixer and rolling pin. The thinly rolled dough was fed under the stamp and communion wafers popped out. I asked the nun if I could taste the dough – it had the taste “qualities” of an unsalted rice cake – it tasted like shit with or without queso

.

The whole process, while very sanitary, didn't have any “holy” aura around it - no doubt some priestly magic needed to be applied.

The idea that a shitty tasting cracker turns into a piece of Jesus meat when eaten and is then washed down with a shot of blood was, IMO, one of the strangest and disgusting rituals that the church had dreamed up. Further, when one took a crap could it be said to be holy shit ?



When I was a health inspector for Denver Health Department I had to inspect the facilities and practice surrounding the making of the "holy flesh".  It was a small (very clean) room in the basement of a residence for nuns.  The lady that produced the sacred biscuits was a elderly nun with hairnet and a white apron over her habit. One production device resembled an oversized notary stamp the others were a mixer and rolling pin. The thinly rolled dough was fed under the stamp and communion wafers popped out. I asked the nun if I could taste the dough – it had the taste “qualities” of an unsalted rice cake – it tasted like shit with or without queso

.

The whole process, while very sanitary, didn't have any “holy” aura around it - no doubt some priestly magic needed to be applied.

The idea that a shitty tasting cracker turns into a piece of Jesus meat when eaten and is then washed down with a shot of blood was, IMO, one of the strangest and disgusting rituals that the church had dreamed up. Further, when one took a crap could it be said to be holy shit ?



Comment by J-Lyn on December 17, 2010 at 1:18pm

Thanks so much for the welcome! Sorry for the late response. I'm so happy to have found a group like this.

Comment by Joseph P on December 15, 2010 at 8:37pm

@Marc

Isn't the text of the actual book itself accurate and unmodified, though?  I haven't actually read it from that copy.  I had read it a while back, in some other printing that I got from the library, years ago.

 

I just got the version I actually own so that I could read the intro that I had heard about from 'The Atheist Experience'.  Well, and of course Ray Comfort's chimps were handing them out for free, so there was no reason not to get it, while I was at Duke University seeing Dawkins speak, anyway.

 

The intro is ... painful.  It took me 5 or 6 sittings to get through the 50 page intro, because I could only cope with so much ignorant bullshit in one go.

Comment by Steve Nelson on December 15, 2010 at 4:11pm

Howdy Everyone! Hey I've just got my new book finished and I'd like to put a Sneak Preview here for ya and the nice Cover Art and ad copy. I hope I can figure out how to get a picture on here.

Escape%20from%20The%20Order%20SNEEK%20PREWIEW.docxEscape%20from%20the%20ORDER%20ad%20copy.docx

Comment by Marc Draco on December 15, 2010 at 2:37pm

Or you can download all six versions for free from the various Internet sites that host them. It's out of copyright and quite easily obtained.

 

The Ray Comfort edition that Joseph alludes to is the completely debased version with the introduction defiling all of Darwin's ideas. [shudders]

Comment by Joseph P on December 15, 2010 at 5:40am

They should both have similar texts.  Darwin made a few clarification corrections in later editions, but they were relatively minor.  I would imagine that most modern printings use his latest version.  Since it's been public domain for well over a century, plenty of people have put out their own editions, mostly just with different introductions and such.  Personally, I love my Ray Comfort edition.  Ray Comfort is such an asshat.

 

As for the difference in titles, the original was actually even longer: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of favored Races in the Struggle for Life.' The longer one is closer to the original, but that doesn't really mean anything.  Some people have shortened the title, since the newer convention of short, catchy titles  has supplanted the old convention of explaining what the hell the book is actually about, with the title.  Apparently most modern readers' ADD kicks in after 3 or 4 words of title.

 

Basically, you'll have to just read the Amazon description of the books about the various introductions and such.  That sort of thing should be the only difference.

Comment by M.S.D. on December 8, 2010 at 9:14pm
Comment by Joseph P on December 4, 2010 at 11:49pm
Yeah, Tony, if you get someone who just flat out doesn't like it and has nothing constructive to add, you can probably disregard that opinion, if you're sure other people genuinely liked it. Some people have no concept of humor. That one of the few comments was about 'appropriateness' ... yeah, that's one humorless prig.

Place the highest value in the negative comments you get, but only those which include some useful suggestion or at least a specific negative detail. A blanket "I didn't like it," is pretty worthless.
Comment by Tony Davis on December 4, 2010 at 11:48pm
Oh, and feel free to subscribe also to my column so that you get automatic updates when I post new articles.
 

Members (4192)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service