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 of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
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
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
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 |
A conversational Spanish translation for Saucy of Frank’s post(mi Espanol no es perfecto, pero lo entiendo bastante bien… usually I don’t do Spanish/English translations.. they’re hard)
First GO Venganza.org! Your sole existance gives me hope, because it means that the world is getting better “is more free.” Sorry to the women-martyrs who live (subjugated?) under the Coran. The day will come for an anti-Islam Venganza.org. Then we can sing what a wonderful world!
I’m going to try to give some criticism: A lot of thinkers, collaborators and etc. of venganza.org are ungrateful! (Ingrates?) I haven’t seen a single pleasurable paragraph containing sincere reflextion upon intelligent design, your invalueable foundation for the birth of the Pastafarian movement.
And none that speak about putting the theory of human evolution at central debate, perhaps globally.
Ok, but we won’t ask anymore (not now at least), it’s a task that would mentally distress the population that has incorporated the possibility that we weren’t created more than 10,000 years ago (??? I’m so sorry if I butchered that last paragraph!)
Ask that the theory of Darwin is also studied… that would be an absurd paradise.
Pastafarianism has alerted the world to the manipulation with which the dogmatic religious try to “brain wash” the youth to secure future followers.
But the religious aren’t the only dogmatics, just like Pastafarianism is not the only new contemporary “religion”
Of course Pastafarianism is honorable, recognises its dogma, but it’s “another new” religion, integrated through pathetic sects “who disguise science” and usurp the names of “skeptics” for their own followers.
It’s clear that some who adhere to a religion or to athiesm, are of equal “belief” (???), because they cannot prove the existance or non-existance of god. “The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense,” says the great Carl Sagan.
The members of this new religion may identify it easily navigating the large parts of the webs of the “skeptic community;” imbuing in the fanaticism almost of Bin Laden they envied, distorted, omitted, interpreted scientific discoveries in such a way that they could use them to spread their dogma: there is no god.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And this we do with evolution, sustaining with certainty a theory like Darwin’s, that signifies perhaps one of the most important advancements of biology, but has categorically demonstrated to be false, between many things in molecular anthropology [this is discussing something I know nothing about in either of my two languages... so the translation is going to be bad!... something about the continuing/dragging on of the evolution of gene transcription or something... I'm sure my friend Jamie, with her always useful biochemistry degree could clear this up for me]
What do we teach our children then? Ok, Intelligent design isn’t for sure, but worse yet is a scientific theory that has proven to be false! Because that truly is a “scientific heresy.”
The honor of science is in play, and yes we overlook it, this religion of pseudo-skeptics will end up much more harmful than that of Islam, thus proving the stomachache [it's the best way I could describe... it's like having your fill] the world has of dogmatic religions, but also the alarming lack of scientific knowledge (ignorance of science?)that is shamelessly deceitful (???)
Many of the commentaries expressed here make your success apparent.
Darwin’s theory isn’t fraudulent, it’s simply false. If your opinion is to the contrary, you need only obey the ignorance.. or in the case of the pseudo-skeptics.. to the dogmatic nonsense
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, so my Spanish (in which I am only conversationally fluent) doesn’t include a lot of the scientific crap he was talking about… so the translation gets a little rough… I’m sorry if I botched the entire thing… feel free to correct or clarify.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Supreme effort Starbuckaneer. Is Frank saying that Darwinism has been proved false by molecular biology?
.
Is he also saying that FSM is doing science a disservice and will be more harmful than Islam?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Avast, me timbers are shivered by the effort there StarB, my thanks for making what was a titanic post in the first place a little clearer.
I’m sticking with what we’ve got though.
Evolution was created by Darwin
Darwin sailed on the Beagle
Beagle is a fine name for a pirate ship
Pirate are the FSMs chosen
.
therefore Darwin was really a pirate and one of the chosen! *Tada!*
.
Grog all round, it’s a holiday today
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the problem here is that some of the satirical nature of FSM is lost in the translation from English to Spanish. Someone reading a computer translated version of this site may not get the ‘flavor’ of our ‘quarky’ religion, or my painfully bad pun (but that’s probably a good thing). ;-)
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
spider…….point of clarification. Charles Darwin did not creat evolution. He described the process of natural selection. The word evolution was actually coined by his grandfather at Edinburgh University before Charles was even born. ;-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is the process by which the Spaghetti Monster’s offspring became linguini, macaroni, and a myriad of other sacred shapes.
Ramen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fundamentalist religions do not own spirituality.
I was trained as a scientist, worked as a scientist, and have not seen anything that replaces either the explanatory ability, or the predictive power, of science. Science is a specific way of studying the world that is based upon rationality, logic, and the reproducability of results.
At the same time, science does not explain the totality of what it means to be human, or even, a living being. I cannot prove Spirit, but I believe in it, because of things I’ve observed and experienced – but those things are not reproducable, thus cannot be studied; not are they predictive of any given natural phenomenon.
Science is not spirit and spirit is not science, much in the same way that sex is not love and love is not sex. When the two can meet, they enrich each other, but they are not the same thing. At the same time, they also are not mutually exclusive – love can exise side by side with sexual desire.
Being a sceintist does not mean one “can’t” believe in God – it just means one doesn’t take the Bible literally. That’s all. Spirit can not be quantized, or fit into a formula, or studied. Science does not reject spirit – it simply does not treat it as a scientifically-provable entity. Most scientists actually do, in fact, believe in God, in one or another form, and/or by one or another name. To claim they do not is nothign more than attempted self-aggrandizement. Which goes against the tenets of pretty much *every* religion.
Then too, what is religion, but attempts *by humans* (and mostly male humans, at that) to take the words of spiritually-gifted people (prophets) and squish the teachings into simplistic little cubbyholes, so as to make them easily memorized by the uneducated masses (since, after all, uneducated people are easier to manipulate and control). Spirit comes from the Creator – but religions are created by Man.
So, in reality, the Creationists’ denegration of science is nothing more than a petty egotistical attempt to claim that they, and they alone, own God, merely because they falsely claim to take the Bible literally. Which itself is hypocrisy – if they did, indeed, take the Bible literally, they would not drive cars, use plastic, or wear polyester-cotton blend clothing, or any of the many other things they oh-so-conveniently merely say are “not in keeping with the times”. If they truely rejected anything that is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, then they would not make mealymouthed statements about ANY part of it “not being applicable to modern times”.
And even worse – no person who truely believes in God would ever deign to try to “prove” his existence, or to “prove” the Bible, through Science. Sceince and spirit are two completely different ways we were given for comprehending the world – to try to “prove” one via the other is the basest of all insults to both. By claiming to “prove” God and the Bible, the people who speak those words damn themselves, first by fouling the very thing which they claim to hold sacred, and second by rejecting one of the gifts that we were given – that being the gift of intelligence. In effect, they are telling God that this gift was at best an error – despite their concommitant claims that God is perfect and does not err. In fact, fundamentalists say things that show they actually believe God has made a great many errors.
So their own words, their own rejection of God’s works based upon their own personal hatreds and fears and egotism, and their own conceited and hypocritical claims of spiritual superiority show them to be the liars they are. The threat is that, like most self-delusional liars, they are all too happy to harm, enslave, and/or eliminate anyone who sees through their lies.
I can respect the Amish, because they live their beliefs. Everyone else? Not in the least. Nobody who uses ANY modern device, mechanism, product, medicine, can in any way claim to be a literalist. They are merely deluding themselves. OTOH, empires can rise or fall based upon the delusions of the masses, and therein lies the threat. And we’re so childishly worried over never insulting anyone, that people are actually thinking of allowing creationsist mythology to be taught as science. Meanwhile, anyone who sees the Bible as allegorical, regardelss of how much value such a person might place upon the wisdom in it, well, such people are to be treated as badly, harmed as equally, as anyone else.
To me, such ranters sound far more like the very Antichrists they claim scientists to be (along with pretty much anyone else who refuses to accept and obey the ranters as any sort of superior authority).
And *there* is where the truth is. For all of their holier-than-though sanctimonious pronouncements, what it really comes down to is that they seek power and control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t let this little gem go by unchallenged:
.
Noodlly Noodle writes “Most scientists actually do, in fact, believe in God, in one or another form, and/or by one or another name.” Absolutely, completely and totally false.
.
A 1998 study in “Nature” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html) showed that only 7% of National Academy of Sciences members (the elite of the US science community) believed in a personal god. Among the general scientific community, the percentage is around 40. Even at 40%, that is a far cry from “most.” Unless the US scientific community has had a sudden spiritual shift, your statement is completely without merit.
.
Also, I grew up in the heart of Amish-land. They are just as hypocritical and dogmatic as any religion. Don’t believe what you see on TV and in movies.
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Spider: I think you’re right… Beagle IS an excellent name for a pirate ship! Just to let you guys know… I had a pirate party last night that hosted about 30 pirates coming and going and throwing water balloons on my golf course (Arr!) and the temperature is at LEAST 5 degrees cooler today. Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Explanations, excuses and gratefulness of Frank.
I request excuses to have sent my commentary in Spanish. Sincerely I thought that the automatic translation was good, but see that it is not it. Unfortunately my handling of the English language is very limited, as many of Spanish speech, I understand it almost perfect but I write it very badly; for this commentary I have used the translator of the Cervantes Institute, and have tried to simplify the writing, I hope that he is useful, although I know that it will be far from being perfect. The Spanish language is much more extensive and complex that the English, and that makes difficult its understanding for which they did not learn it from his childhood.
I clarify that I did not write in Spanish like a revolt act before the world-wide diffusion of the English language; on the contrary, I believe that it is very positive for the world, the fact that all we must learn a universal language (what does not imply to leave the native language). Esperanto was a good attempt, but the practice demonstrates that the English will be that language. I have predicted to do a time to finish to me learning the English well; meanwhile my ignorance prevails to participate as it wanted to me, in as interesting forums as this one.
I thank for much to Starbuckaneer his effort, and I say to him that it was quite good, but the subtilities of the Spanish language, cause interpretation errors, that yearning to clarify now.
I am in favor of FSM, have not written with irony. I say that the “false skeptics” are those that are doing a terrible damage to him to science. He can have false skeptics within FSM? Yes, he can have, but I question the false skeptics, not to FSM.
The theory of Darwin has been demonstrated like false in some aspects; and, which is the problem, why I see indignation before this commentary? The same it happened with the theory of gravity of Newton, who was improved by the one of Einstein; this it is the natural way of science “to improve to itself”.
Please they do not take this like arrogance, humbly I say to them that I have a doctorate in biological sciences, reason why my opinion, far from the fanaticism, is described.
As well as the standard model of the quantum physics, never can be considered like “the reality”, but hardly like a mental scheme that helps us to understand, the matter on very small scale; the same it makes the theory of Darwin.
The opposition of Einstein to the existence of the chance in the universe, and with it to some conceptions of the quantum theory, is well-known. This does not imply that all the components of the theory were missed, but only some, and others would have to be interpreted of another form. In fact, Theory M of the Dr. Edward Witten, does, and is the best candidate to become the dreamed Unified Theory. With the theory of Darwin it happens the same, with the substantial difference that already has been demonstrated like false, to explain the evolution of the human species.
For the evolution of the rest of the species, perhaps, and “only perhaps”, it can be valid.
The molecular anthropology, by means of the tracking of mitocondrial DNA, determined that our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, was originated in Africa 171,500 years ago; and this implies that we do not have relation some with the H. erectus (with the Neandertal, already knew that not).
This represents a new “lost link”, although in fact in the theory of Darwin, all the links are lost, because biological continuity has not been demonstrated, between none of the 14 known archaic species.
It is certain that the technological limitations, prevent the verification of some postulates of many theories, are postulates of relativity, still without verifying; and the same it can be applied to the genetic continuity of the archaic species, but with the exception of which already the nonexistence of that continuity has been verified, between the H. erectus and the Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Also, trackings of “transcription factors” (considered DNA part of “epigenome”), that they compared, humans, chimpanzees, orangutanes and macacos rhesus; they found that in the human lineage, these factors, they evolved at a speed that does not have similarity with any other well-known species. The “spontaneous mutation”, that “perhaps” explains the evolution of other species, does not explain it for ours.
By this, thus as the theory of ID would not have to be taught, the theory of Darwin like “the at the moment” valid one for science would not have either to be taught, because it is not it. It must be taught like a model, perhaps valid for other species.
That people without a solid scientific formation, defend the theory of Darwin, is not a problem, and is comprehensible; but that an increasing group of “false skeptics”, disguised of scientists, omitting discoveries and distorting others, they try to deceive people, motivated in his fanatical atheism… it is so bad and dangerous as the speech of which they maintain to have the “absolute truth”, contained in a “sacred book”.
The existence or nonexistence of God, it cannot be proven scientifically, neither logically. It is an utopia that all we had humility to accept this, but a “beautiful utopia”. For that we give value him to the human reason, the logic, over the dogmatism, it is not difficult to reflect on that the fanaticism, does not have ideology; the religious are not only fanatical, but also many atheists.
To believe or not to believe in God, is only one presumption. For those who “we create” in God with a conception similar to the one of Einstein, or Gödel, or Newton, and so many men of science, happened and contemporary, the satirical critic of the atheists (fanatical) on which our belief is based on the weakness, or worse, in the ignorance, is as ridiculous as the sentence “to the hell” that the dogmatic religious foretell to us.
The speech of the fanatics is inoffensive for the adults, but potentially very dangerous for the children.
For that reason I am glad of which FSM exists, because I believe that FSM is an answer to the fanaticism. Sincerely I do not know if FSM only fights to the fanaticism of the religious, if it is thus, the same is positive… while it does not support the atheistic fanaticism.
Again, Starbuckaneer thanks, and excuses to all by this bad automatic translation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now see, if you would give Pastafarianism a chance, we aren’t necessarily saying evolution is where we came from. We just use evolution as a loony, cracked out theory to say that why can’t the FSM be true? I mean I know he is, but it’s for all the non-believers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course evolution is wrong, it was a scientist who made this theory. I think just knowing that, christians are already against it. Not to mention the fact that we already know how we were created. The FSM.
But if you look into it the order of belivability it would go like this:
ID>Evolution>FSM.
ID being the most ludicrous, with very little and questionable evidence.
Then evolution because of an overwhelming amount of apparent evidence.
The FSM because it is right and the evidence is beyond overwhelming in fact there isn’t even a word that exists to describe the sheer phenomenoness of such unbelievable evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey, I might disagree with you, but at least you’re more open-minded than those Creationism morons!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The evidence that the FSM is the true God is its likeness in the DNA and RNA strands that provide the blueprints of the living world.
Fashioned in his own image.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm……..That should have been “that contain the blueprints of all living things”
Samey-Samey
Time to go to bed. I’m getting too fussy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is also DNA upon which the pressures of natural selection act, which results in evolutionary change. Oh my FSM god, reading all this fundi tripe is turning me into a preacher. I will say 10 Holy Noodles before I go to sleep. (or the FSM prayer posted in one of these threads if I thought I had any hope of finding it)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do this guy is an idiot, evolution is not fraud its an observation. I am not claiming that we necessarily share a direct common ancestor with apes, but to think that evolution is not real and is just theory is plain stupidity. Its an observation, if you can reconize that things adapt and change over time then you should probably unplug your computer and sit in a closet because existence is this world is just to overwhelming for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have scientific evdidence that proves that evolutlion is real you idiots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a non-extremist believer. The fact remains that there is no way anyone on earth will be able to figure out how the universe was made. There isn’t anyone capable of using his or her whole brainpower to figure this one out. However, I do believe that God could have used anyway he wanted to create the universe. If he wanted to use he “Big Bang Theory” then for goodness sake he could have or he could have used a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as another method. Additionally, there could be even more possible explanations for how we got here but we will never know until we die.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AAArrrrr tis a beaut of a morning to be upon the noodly seas…
.
Melissa, whilst i agree as of this point in time “The fact remains that there is no way anyone on earth will be able to figure out how the universe was made” for certain, (and we still have some good theories, I fail to see how we make the jump from stating we’re not sure how the universe started because we have no empirical evidence from before T=0 (start of time) all the way to “I do believe that God could have used anyway he wanted to create the universe. ”
.
You use scientific method up to the point it no longer suits your preformed ideas and then bound all the way to superstition. why not apply the same criteria constantly?
.
I’m afraid i don’t agree with “we will never know until we die”, as knowledge marchs forward perhaps we will, the point is that we don’t just attribute anything we don’t understand yet to a supernatural being. I cannot shake the impression that religion for the majority of believers (whichever faith) is a crutch to prop up the human psyche to prevent it floundering in admitting it’s own ignorance. Why not just admit “we don’t know yet”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look, it’s quite simple:
1) Religion involves most of the world’s population. Always has; always will. Is that an argument for a Divine Being? Hell yes!
2) Heathens will say, “Oh, but religion is just a way for people to interact with each other and ‘belong’; therefore, it’s unscientific.” Look, you don’t need religion / creationism to ‘belong’. You can do that anywhere. But when a group of people get together in a religious setting, they are able to increase in knowledge. Darwin, on the other hand, was heading out to the middle of nowhere. Why? Because he had no friends and couldn’t make any because of his elephant man-like appearance. He skulked about the ship (which wasn’t even a pirate ship!) and thought, “Well, if they don’t want me, I’ll think of something to ruin their whole day!” He almost succeeded.
3) And this is so damn simple it’s scary: The FSM has the ability to confuse weaker minds into believing fossil evidence that supports Darwinism. He made it clear that the strong mind uses faith in Him to achieve true knowledge. Any moron can believe the theory of some grotty little, pseudo-scientist, who never once got laid. Those who believe know that the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory are promised and do exist.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know where I came from and where I’m going to the noodly embrace of the great one
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religion and faith have actually put science back hundreds of years, they have seeked to hide and try to discredit scientific theories which go against their view of the world.
.
The person who first said the world was round had a few problems with the church.
.
Womens rights, another point where the church put equility and modern thinking back by hundreds of years.
.
Actually fossil evidence is only a very small part of how we have come to prove evolution, yes I did say PROVE, as evolution true beyond any reasonable doubt (if you can convict a person to die on these grounds then its good enough for a scientific proof). If you knew anything at all about Darwin you’d realise he was not a fossil digger, fossils were later used to add more weight to evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glastonbury Dex,
“1) Religion involves most of the world’s population. Always has; always will. Is that an argument for a Divine Being? Hell yes!”
.
you may be right that the majority of the world population does believe in God, but you’ll also find that the majority of the world population is superstitious and uneducated.
.
That all being said religion is loosing a lot of ground very fast to Non-god believers. When looking at atheist figures you must remember to include Buddhist and all the off shoots of that (as they don’t believe in a God that is a supreme being).
.
More about quality not quantity, the most important thing to remember is that the higher the education the greater the chance is that you will discard your beleifs in God, this gives a great amount of hope for future atheists.
.
You are more likely to good looking and sexier if you don’t believe in God, this is a fact as is supported with the same evidence as is backing up creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And just because I can not resist, sorry!
.
.
Glastonbury Dex,
You are a Cunt of the highest order! Darwin is the greatest human ever to live, period. How dare a guy who sleeps with his own sister say anything against the great man.
.
Thanks to Darwin religion is declining each and every year. You give people a good education and freedom to speach and they all of a sudden turn atheist. Look at the Netherland 4 out of 5 don’t believe in God, it is the home of freedom of speach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NowthewordlhasMeaning,
.
I believe you missed the true meaning in Gastonbury’s post. It appears that he is a Fundametnalist Pastafarian. He refutes Evolution because he knows the FSM created all.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If my “god” created all the fauna and flora of the world, I would be out preaching that everyone show a little more respect for nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hence the pirates
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One
Book
.
.
.
One.
So on the basis of one book (against countless science journals and books of proven facts) you expect scientific thinkers as a whole to throw up their hands and say “ah, you got us, what a pity, pack it up fellas, time to start prayin”
.
.
One book.
The Bible.
.
.
One question: Dinosaurs… God put the fossils here why? Messing with our heads? Practical joke?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Bible killed the dinosaurs. They’d mooched around happily for millions of years and then the Bible, in its perfect, infallible, God-written form, popped into existence. One of the early mammals read it out loud, the dinosuars realised they were impossible in a world created solely for humans, and politely lay down and died.
.
This is the only explanation I’ve thought of in the four seconds between me reading your post, Dunc, and starting my reply, so therefore it’s true. (I don’t like to think too much – it drowns out God’s instructions.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When someone comes to me and says “Birds evolved from Dinosaurs.”, I ask for evidences AND the credibility of the evidence. Currently, I still have reservations about that statement but I’m inclined to believe in it due to the increasing amount of evidence that I get to know of.
.
But when some fella comes to me and says “Dinosaurs are 5000 years old. Pity there wasn’t any room on the Ark.”, it tells you SO much about creationism.
.
Just to provide some evidence to what I’m saying.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/creationist_museum_onion.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The ark story is a great one,
.
Just imagine the drunken prick who came up with that, “YEah be good or God will flood the world again” Drunken priest
“If God flooded the world then why do we have living things around here?” someone soon to be dead for showing too much intellect says.
“..erm…erm..a…Big boat…Phew thats the one Muses made a huge boat and got all the creatures together two of each”
.
Another classic to go down with Mary’s “Honest husband I have not been getting fucked by some big bloke down the pub I am a virgin still”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Belief in a supernatural benevolent being gives those who believe an evolutionary advantage in the environment.
Survival of the fittest refers to the ability to produce fertile offspring. Most fit=most fertile offspring to continue the species.
Enter Maslow’s Hiererchy of needs:
Biological needs must be satisfied before safety, then love, status and actualization. At the very top are spiritual needs. When these needs are met, people are the best they can be.
If the ultimate measure of ecological success is contiuance of the species, then those who are at the top of their game will continue the species better than those who are not. When you reach the spiritual level of being you will produce more offspring and spread your genes more.
People at the top of their game draw from the spiritual level for comfort and proof of worth and reason to exist and therefore pass those beliefs to their offspring who do the same, and so on.
Hence, those who believe have a selective advantage over those who do not. Belief in a supernatural being leads to more offspring. As those offspring reproduce, the “belief gene” is spread to include a greater percentage of the gene pool. Evolution=change in the gene pool of a species over time.
Belief in a supernatural benevolent being gives those who believe an evolutionary advantage in the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your argument is based solely on the fact that people who do not believe in god are not spiritually fulfilled. I submit that people who don’t believe in god are the MOST spiritually fulfilled. I, for one, am 100% satisfied that there’s no god, and that’s a whole lot more spiritually satisfied than most religious people I know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
Are you serious?
….Belief in a supernatural being leads to more offspring. As those offspring reproduce, the “belief gene†……….
A belief gene. What is the DNA sequence, I’ll look it up. rofl :)
That must be the most stupid bastardisation of Darwins theory I have ever seen.
0.5/10 for trying since you managed to reproduce some Darwinian theory in your post.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if word of this site has got around to the stand up comedians. Enough material on here to last them for years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
If you could post that sequence on this site, I will run a homology search on Drosophila (fruit fly) and C.elegans (earthworm) and then I may be able to tell what the fly and worm believe in. Just a notion, but I beleive they may be more partial to spaghetti.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you, One Eyed Jack, for explaining things to yet another confused unbeliever. I feel that there are too many to bring back to the truth before we are able to rest happily in His noodly appendage.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry Glastonbury I had just been reading a load crap about schools in the UK that teach ID as fact and was looking to take it out on someone, after mis-reading your post I just shot my mouth off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think what ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE is describing is what Dawkins calls, “memes”. A meme is a unit of cultural information transferrable from one mind to another. Memes act like social genes, mutating and replicating through a society. Religious ideas are a type of meme.
.
Memes that either have a beneficial effect on the society or have a good mechanism for promoting their propagation will be passed to other hosts. An interesting aspect of this theory is that memes that have the best propagation mechanism are the most likely to survive. So, even a meme that is harmful to the host can continue to grow.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IS this the same process that helps the bees and such locate the correct flowers etc, as it is not like a bee goes to flower classes.
.
One of the most interesting “Memes” is the Army ants in africa when attacking slugs how trap the ants in its slime making it impossible for the ants to move and kill it. The worker ants react to this by packing soil around the slug to nutralize the slime. Learning though Genes, amazing.
.
It is something I know little about but hopefully can learn anyone advise any books on this subject?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey NowtheworldhasMeaning, I would recommend “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism†by Richard Milton. Haha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so faghettini, is your name a declaration of your sexual orientation and food preferences, or do you just want to call everyone else nasty names? That’s not very nice, and no matter your chosen religion, it’s probably aginst the rules.
WWFSMD? He’d Say “Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay?”
Haha yourself
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes on both counts. But I have kept the nasty names to a minimum, given that its a religious site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Faghettini, hahahaa yeah thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear FSM no! I really hope you are joking about Milton, faghettini. My gut tells me you are.
.
Milton is a crackpot of the highest order. If Milton is going to be used as reference material, we might as well just phone the Psychic Friends Network. It’s quicker and just as reliable.
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One Eyed Jack
You could be right. I’m doing stuff outside of this area at the moment however I could check it later.
There has been some area of interest in identifying genes (and the combinations of gene products) that stimulate the way in which we percieve things. However at this stage I think most agree that belief in a particular theory is due to enviromental pressures rather than anything genetic. (eg. education, parental views ect.) Like for instance if you had moronic bible- bashing parents, I suppose the moronic part could be inherited but the bible bashing would probably be taught (indoctrinated) to you as a child. It is possible that it was the ID/ creationist movement that threw the term “belief gene” out there in the first place. I was actually hoping ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE would clarify the “belief gene”, but didn’t expect it. When I have time I’ll just run a web search on it and find out where the concept came from. Someone may have just mentioned it in a mocking way in conversation to me. But Richard is definately the man for that particular area. I am more involved in genetic diseases.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0