The Federation for Furthering Science (FFS)

[imatfaal]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/04/scientists-pledge-to-increase-interference-with-the-church

 

UK Church groups have recently been criticised for campaigning against the legalisation of mitochondrial donation. As their efforts failed, a group of emboldened scientists has vowed to turn the tables and interfere with matters of religion.

 

 

I do love the name Dr Hugh Briss

[Phi for All]

I wish religious folks would leave science to the people who know science, FFS.

[StringJunky]

I wish religious folks would leave science to the people who know science, FFS.

My immediate thought exactly!

 

Dr Briss pointed out. “Seriously though; why is a three-parent family such a negative? Is it in the Bible? Wasn’t Jesus himself the result of a three-parent family? Or did I get the wrong idea there? I don’t see how you can tell people that two parents is the only thing permissible while insisting they call God “our father”, but maybe it’s just me”.

There's a touch of Douglas Adams there methinks.

Edited February 6, 2015 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Jesus is certainly a prominent point against claims that a child's mother is best off when marrying the father.

[MigL]

But the claim that the CHILD is better off when the father marries the mother is certainly accurate.

And not for religious reasons either.

 

And you can't claim that the Bible is fiction when it says the earth is 6000 yrs old, and truthful when it claims Jesus had a 3 parent family.

This is a science forum, so let's all agree that it is fiction with possible, real historical figures, meant to guide us and teach us morals.

And further, those morals apply to a previous age ( almost two millennia ago ), and some may no longer be relevant

[ajb]

Are we now going to have smartly dressed people knocking door to door asking 'have you ever thought about science?' ?

[imatfaal]

But the claim that the CHILD is better off when the father marries the mother is certainly accurate.

And not for religious reasons either.

 

And you can't claim that the Bible is fiction when it says the earth is 6000 yrs old, and truthful when it claims Jesus had a 3 parent family.

This is a science forum, so let's all agree that it is fiction with possible, real historical figures, meant to guide us and teach us morals.

And further, those morals apply to a previous age ( almost two millennia ago ), and some may no longer be relevant

 

"And you can't claim that the Bible is fiction when it says the earth is 6000 yrs old, and truthful when it claims Jesus had a 3 parent family."

Personally I think both are false - but your assertion that you either have to agree both or neither is clearly false. Because some of the bible is palpably false do I have to deny the truth of the rest - this is a book that contains purported testaments over a millennia and does not claim in itself to be inerrant truth. A holy book which claims to be the dictated word of god - might have more trouble with the contention that some is false and some is true ( you might even end up with verses being unwittingly taken does as dictation of the devil); but the bible claims to contain true teachings and unchanging laws - but tbomk does not claim consist of solely holy writ

 

I would also stake a decent amount of cash that the majority of European Xians would deny any literal truth in the genesis myth and yet assert some truth in the virgin birth, and even more credence in jesus being the son of god.

[MigL]

The first time you answer the door in your underwear, AJB, is the last time you'll ever see those 'smartly dressed people'.

 

Guaranteed !