While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 23 » Show All
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Except that evolution has decades of scientific evidence to support it, whereas creationism only has faith to back it.
I am Zook the keeper of the spaghetti sauce. I am here to testify on behalf of the great Noodler himself. He has told me through a message in my alphabet soup that he is angry for the continual attempts to disprove him most obvious omnipresence and demands a monument be erected so those that are truly faithful may travel to this new Mecca of homage. I have begun the great task of building this accolade to our great creator. Other must also fulfill the edict of the great noodle and build shrines in their own towns until our scientific enlightenment is spread to everyone worthy of the great un-kept secret of the pirates and the spaghetti monster.
Evolution is a changing, dynamic theory. When new information is discovered it can be added to the current theory or change the entire idea all together. Evolution is not conclusive proof of the origins of Humans or life in general, but it is the best guess based on the observance of the fossils in the rock record and the changing of species observed in modern time. While it is impossible to rerun the experiment of the Earth to observe the way the planet developed. It is possible to observe the record left of those changes through time (although much of the record is missing). Science can fill in the holes with logical conjecture.
Science as a whole has been working on the conundrums of the universe since humans first looked into the sky and at the planet around them. The theories and laws of science have been developed as that understanding has increased. There have been mistakes made and new developments, but as a whole a natural world explanation is sought out first to explain happenings. Right now evolution is the theory of explanation for the development of life on this planet. New evidence could change it (though unlikely) but the dynamic of the science allows for that change.
I am interested in the source you have provided, but I am weary of an argument based on a single source. I would be interested in your views of the development of life on the planet. You claim not to fully believe in Genesis creation, but do not provide your alternative creation theory. Your following statement suggest that you are open to the any possibility of how we came to be by “finding out”. I submit to you that deciding on the outcome (not evolution, and not Genesis creation) prior to research will give a skewed result.
As always please be respectful of all persons that post here. Debate and arguments should be conducted as civil as possible. Name calling and disrespect just cause your opponent to become defensive and unwilling to listen. If you want to change the ideas and thoughts of another person it is impossible through attack.
I just keep laughing to myself and thinking something that doesn’t seem to occur to the religious wackos. It’s acutally possible for both theories to co-exist.
Still with me? ok…
Heres a metaphor for ya.
God set up the dominoes and we’re seeing how they eventually fell.
The dominoes being the building blocks of life (dna) and how they fell is the process of evolutionary mutation.
logics a pisser ain’t it. :D
I want beer.
Is the stripper factory customizable to each one’s standards?
Some people like fat women but I like brunettes.
I wouldn’t want to be a Christian when the world ends because of our own wrong-doing. I’m not worried about all of that shit, though…
I just want the beer and strippers. Golden gates are for interior decorators and snobby aristocrats. It’s all a fabricated illusion…mirrors, even…
beer and strippers. can’t go wrong with that combo. :D
No, you and Milton are the frauds.
In spite of actual, real science, you still want to hang on to your Creationism posing as science? Evolution is indeed a theory, and if you actually knew what the word “theory” meant, you would shut up and crawl back under the religious fundamentalist rock so that we could step on it. Hey, don’t get upset; you should be overjoyed to meet your Christian God at the earliest opportunity, right?
I enjoyed insulting you here because you’re obviously no Christian, and you damned sure don’t act anything like Jesus would. You and others like you are attempting to use religion as a societal power device. The Dalai Lama, a Buddhist monk, is way, way more “Christian” than you or Milton will ever be.
it seems to me like mr. fraud isn’t as open to new ideas as his contradictory letter might lead one to believe. It contains both the statements “We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.” and “Evolution is a fraud.”
i don’t know if anybody else was confused by his post, but i have a book he can read to “shatter his myth” of creationism.
its called “The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
and no matter what anybody says, I don’t have any clue how ID is a more rational explanation than evolution. I don’t know whats so much more realistic about a “being” that created the earth in 7 days, and gave the power to some men to do everything they ever would do, and make sure that not one christian on earth has a clear idea of what it is that they believe in and make plenty of contradictions in literature and ideas and stuff.
its a proven fact that offspring are not the same as their parents. its true that offspring that are better fit for life have a better chance of living. over time, animals have changed because they were better suited for their specific environment.
carbon dating is real, and acurate down to an exact science.
if someone doubts evolution, then they should doubt all other theories and science. Instead of finding a logical explination, just saying “god did it” is just down right lazy. maybe they should argue that light reflects off of objects because god wants it to.
The only reason “Evolution” makes a lousy creation story, is because it’s not a creation story. Evolution is an explanation for diversity of life, and is falsely labeled creationism.
Evolution is nothing more than adaptation in the long term, and we have solid evidence supporting it. Just look at any small island.
Despite the fact that we have observed evolution in laboratories and found over a thousand transistory fossils. Other than that, though, its totally a religion.
You can’t win a logical discussion where faith is involved. Facts have no weight because the ‘faithful’ will simply choose to ignore them. Faith releases them from the responsibility of proving their claims and at the same time prohibits them from questioning it themselves.
Milton is a crackpot. He fits sqarely among the ranks of flat-earthers and the like. If you are interested, here is a site that responds to his “Shattering” evidence, http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html.
If this is the best you have to offer, don’t waste my time. I’ve got more important things to do like clip my toenails.
RAmen.
Sum Yung Gai youre a retard how dare you insult the spaggeti monster! and how dare you posting youre beliefs from the heritic cristian church on this holy web page?
May the spaggeti monster have mery on youre soul…
Dear Sean,
I’m glad you were paying attention when watching the Reading Is Fundamental(RIF) stuff on Saturday morning cartoons when you were little.
However, I am so sorry that you didn’t get the part about
Critical Thinking Skills!
Of course I am now a member of the
“I’ve stopped bashing my head against a brick wall 12 step program.” so I can’t have this conversation with you.
Bashing my head against a wall was a very addictive habit, one that cost me many hours of my time and the peace of my homelife.
I encourage anyone who is currently bashing one’s head against a wall to join our 12 step program and stop bashing your head against a brick wall. I’ve ben on the “wagon” so to speak for about 2 years now.
OH by the way
take the words bashing my head against a brick wall out and insert
Debating Evolution and then you’ll get it, well maybe - but anyway your ignorance is no longer my problem.
Gotta go and call my sponsor now- I almost bashed my head here for a minute.
RAMEN and pass the marinara.
How is the theory of evolution irrational? To suggest something is irrational is to suggest that the process is chaotic, absurd and unfounded.
The last time I checked, scientists, researchers and the like had this horribly nasty habit of making things nice, neat orderly and, not only asking questions but making comparisons and drawing conclusions based off of what was observed…how is that irrational? It seems quite rational to me.
This whole idea of an ‘almighty being’ drifting around here and there making and unmaking things must doesn’t make sense to me. Where is the proof that this being exists? Where is the evidence that this omnipotent and/or omniscient being exists and has placed his/her/its hand/appendage in matters of our existence?
I can SEE proof of evolution and natural selection through fossil records. I can SEE proof of science and our understanding of the world around us (no, that is not some guy driving a chariot across the sky, that is the sun, moving as the earth rotates on its axis). I can observe these things.
You challenge me to prove that Evolution, a theory, is how things work and happen in the development of the world. I will take you up on that. I challenge you to prove to me that there is a God, and that this God created the world, our reality, our very existence. I challenge you to prove Evolution wrong.
Science, evidence gathered through fossil records and other means of information gathering have given plenty of solid, concrete observational evidence. I have my ammunition. I have my evidence and proof.
Where’s yours?
I have read this book by Milton. He is somebody who uses the the evidence that proves his point and either disregards the rest. The evidence that he doesnt disregard he misinterprets intentionaly or otherwise. I have included a link to an article written by milton.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/rmilton_darwin1.htm
Not to say there is no validity to his arguments but his DNA evidence is a little pale. He mentions nothing of genetic markers only sequences in common. His postulation is that evolution predicts these two animals are distantly related but they have a low precentage of identical sequences. He fails to argue or mention that haman and chimp DNA are almost 99% identical.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec03/chimp.life.hrs.html
Milton also fails to mention that DNA similarities and differences would be resultant on how far back the species diverged not how similar they are now. He sites that a chickien is more like a crocidile than a snake. Which he says disproves evolution. This same data would prove evolution if the snake seperated from a common ancestorial species earlier than the crocodile and chicken. He also uses number of chromosomes to prove his point. The goldfish has more chromosomes than the human so evolution must be false. Nevermind that complexity of chromosomes and how much DNA infromation is in each one is more important than the number of chromosomes. Nevermind that a significant amount of genetic infromation contained in most species is never used or turned on it just sits in the chromosomes being dormant. Milton seems to take something as complex as genetic science and turn it into nothing more than a numbers game.
Milton while presenting a far better argument than the watch maker argument is still dealing in some pretty soft science. If you like his article (link above) I recomend the book. If the article annoys you with its incorectly presented scientific evidence well the book is the same just longer.
Other links about Miltion:
Richard Milton vs. Jim Foley email debate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
Some sites that are not fair and balenced towards milton:
http://www.antiquityofman.com/book_miltonreview.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html
Some people who like milton:
http://www.alternativescience.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering.html
You mean the Richard Milton who believes in remote viewing? The Richard Milton who believes that a man can live for years on water alone? That Richard Milton? May I direct you to the site of one Mr James Randi (Who surely sits at the right hand of his noodlness) who has many entries about Richard Milton. These entries leave me in no doubt that anything endorsed by Richard Milton is ridiculous as for his book, Andy Hardy and Nancy Drew are more believable.
Yours in Carbonara :0P
Reply to Stevee:
I also recommend Randi’s website (homepage for the James Randi Education Foundation). Anyone who is interested can find the page at www.randi.org. That site is a bastion of reason in an otherwise insane world.
James Randi is one of my favorites. Right up there with Bad Astronomy, the Skepticality pod cast, and of course, venganza. Got to love those challenge applications on JREF. It’s sad that there are so many people ready to believe the “woo-woo.” Incidently, Skepticality just posted a pod cast on Sunday where they interviewed James Randi.
RAmen and pass the stinky cheese.
It always amazes me how many people still assume that evolution has anything to do with the origins of the world or the origins of life. IT DOESN’T!
The origins of the universe is an area belonging to the physicists. The origins of life is a discipline called “bioneogenesis” and belongs to the biochemists. Evolutionary theory takes as a starting point that life exists. Darwin made no claims as to how life started, just how new species arrived.
The current model is based on Darwin’s theories of natural selection, Mendel’s theories on inheritance and many other theories that interlink. It still makes no claims as to how life started (some believe in the convergence of organic molecules, but we all know that it was our Noodly Master). These theories are all rational conjecture based on observation of the natural world. As yet they have NEVER been disproved. As the very nature of science is to disprove things, this means this model is the best one we have.
May his Noodliness bless you
Cardinal Fang