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
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 |
My first obsavation when I heard news of the shroud of Turin, it shows a man who is around 6 foot or slightly over. Now if Jesus was 6 foot why the hell would Judas need to kiss him, so the Romans would know who he was? He could have just said “He’s the bastard about a foot taller than every other fucker!”
.
the earth 6000 years old, lol you moron lol. Honestly I am sat behind my computer laughing my head off at you! Only a complete fool could believe this. Seriously get a clue, even if carbon dating is proven to be false, we have serveral other dating techniques, but lets say that all of them do prove to be fake. Well we still have Geology to back us up, you have heard that certain land masses was once a huge land mass and has split, now if the earth was only 6000 years old they’d have had to move at a great speed to get into the present position.
.
There is NO evidence that states the world is only 6000 years old, only a few morons who don’t have a clue it is as simple as that. It is not even a point scientist bother arguing about.
.
I have to say that you must be the most very foolish if you actually believe the world is only 6000 years old.
“An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead?”
.
Fuck me I’d hate to go to any court of law where that passes off as proof.
My first obsavation when I heard news of the shroud of Turin, it shows a man who is around 6 foot or slightly over. Now if Jesus was 6 foot why the hell would Judas need to kiss him, so the Romans would know who he was? He could have just said “He’s the bastard about a foot taller than every other fucker!†(This is a complete red herring, how tall were people in the middle ages? OH WAIT, you don’t know.)
.
the earth 6000 years old, lol you moron lol. Honestly I am sat behind my computer laughing my head off at you! Only a complete fool could believe this. Seriously get a clue, even if carbon dating is proven to be false, we have serveral other dating techniques, but lets say that all of them do prove to be fake. Well we still have Geology to back us up, you have heard that certain land masses was once a huge land mass and has split, now if the earth was only 6000 years old they’d have had to move at a great speed to get into the present position.
.
There is NO evidence that states the world is only 6000 years old, only a few morons who don’t have a clue it is as simple as that. It is not even a point scientist bother arguing about.
.
I have to say that you must be the most very foolish if you actually believe the world is only 6000 years old.
Okay, where’s the evidence that its older? Mind you, I’ve debunked your dating methods to where at max, they can find evidence for perhaps….11,530 years back. And you’re still using circular reasoning with Evolution to prove Evolution.
By the way, if Evolution is true, how come language is more complex from ancient times, than it is today.
And what do you make of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated? Or is this okay too?
(speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Nope to busy wading through that pile of crap you posted.
“An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead?â€
.
Fuck me I’d hate to go to any court of law where that passes off as proof.
Well lets see here. I think this sounds like a Pharisee objection (found in the Bible). So was the body stolen? No, too many Roman guards around the tomb.
Or perhaps, Jesus was a Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Would you like to go there with me….cause I’d highly doubt you’d want to mess with me here.
(speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Nope to busy wading through that pile of crap you posted.
I’d say, unless you wish to be ostracized, to keep your pile of crap to yourself unless you have something useful to add here.
“Furthermore, the final problem with this is that if this had been a lie, no one would have had any reason to become a part of it.”
.
There are lots of reasons to become part of a lie. Especially when the most powerful people of the era have been part of this lie too.
It’s sad but true that millions of people have been dying for lies - and they still do today. If you are gasping for evidence/examples again, use Iraq.
“Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence? ”
.
You are right this alone is not enough, that is why the have geologists to age the rocks around them. They also use fossils found in the ice, and you know that they can tell the age of the ice through various methods.
.
Now if all these different methods match up then they have effectively aged the fossil. But if just one of the above (and more which I am unsure of) is out then a question mark is put on the evidence. Science is obsessive about testing results using several methods, religion fails to use any.
Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.
I’d say, unless you wish to be ostracized, to keep your pile of crap to yourself unless you have something useful to add here.
.
Bite me you little twit..
Doc: As Maxwell has previously stated, there’s is little point to discussing the straight science of this issue with each other. There is virtually no chance of either of you making an impact on the other’s beliefs that way. In the end, the one big question we have is “Is Creationism science?” While I understand that there may be scientific study required to poke all your little holes in evolution, Creationism is not science because it requires supernatural intervention by definition. Do I believe that students should be told that there are still numerous holes in evolutionary theory and that there always will be unless a time machine is invented? Of course, but I see absolutely no reason that ID can be taught as a reasonable alternative in our biology classes. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Note: If I seemed to ramble a bit in this post, don’t mind. I’m 14 years old and sick.
“Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.”
Where?
“Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence? â€
.
You are right this alone is not enough, that is why the have geologists to age the rocks around them. They also use fossils found in the ice, and you know that they can tell the age of the ice through various methods.
.
Now if all these different methods match up then they have effectively aged the fossil. But if just one of the above (and more which I am unsure of) is out then a question mark is put on the evidence. Science is obsessive about testing results using several methods, religion fails to use any.
Wrong again!
Religion uses deductive reasoning to come to the conclusions that it does. If you had been anywhere near around the stuff as long as I have, you’d know this. Unfortunately for you, they are probably doubly dependent upon Logic than anything else, and if something does not conform to Logic, it is thrown out. Look up Glenn Miller’s site to see how much work goes into actually proving the stuff Religion does. Its about 5 times the amount of Modern Day Science.
“Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.â€
Where?
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Buttjester: Don’t be a prick. This guy is what we want. Reasonable debate breaks the monotony of stupid insults
I am a very recent convert.
I have taken up pastafarianism in the hope that through communing with the great FSM he will let me not be touched by his noodly appendage as I jump from airplanes. Thus when I am skydiving I can, one day, do so without a parachute, once HE feels that I have sufficient faith. I plan to spread the word of FSM to all of the other skydivers at the local dropzone so that they can help me to convince HIM to help us with his noodly appendage during our “intelligent falling†episodes.
Of course, I doubt many people of other Religious beliefs would be willing to take that Leap of Faith… Maybe their belief in their God just isn’t as strong as they say. I say they should prove how much they believe in their god instead of trying to reason with us.
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Doc: As Maxwell has previously stated, there’s is little point to discussing the straight science of this issue with each other. There is virtually no chance of either of you making an impact on the other’s beliefs that way. In the end, the one big question we have is “Is Creationism science?†While I understand that there may be scientific study required to poke all your little holes in evolution, Creationism is not science because it requires supernatural intervention by definition. Do I believe that students should be told that there are still numerous holes in evolutionary theory and that there always will be unless a time machine is invented? Of course, but I see absolutely no reason that ID can be taught as a reasonable alternative in our biology classes. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Note: If I seemed to ramble a bit in this post, don’t mind. I’m 14 years old and sick.
No problem there. Naturalism is actually self defeating. C.S. Lewis has also pointed out that one would have to observe all miracles in order to state that there are no miracles. David Hume tried to disprove miracles, and nothing has come of the argument really since (except a lot of people seem to be misguided by his claims). Hume looked at a bunch of deaths, and then stated, that since many people die, that Jesus could not rise from the dead. He failed to look at the quality of evidence, which is what any wise person would do when making any kind of decision at all on this issue. So Philosophically, Naturalism is bunk.
Is Creationism Science? Sure it is. Go to Creation on the Web (website) and look the question up. Its a great site with plenty of information.
@Max
Ya, I’m sorry. You are right. I’m just a little tired and I just couldn’t quite believe he threatened to “ostracize” me. Whatever..
Look up Christian Think Tank, then come back and talk to me. :).
Relax. I was just making fun of you for all the times you’ve done that in this argument. {=)
Right, but mine were legitimate. You don’t back up your arguments with evidence. I have, and you’re playing the card stacking game with me. I’m used to this treatment, even from PHD Scientists sadly enough.