Evolution is a fraud. I refer you to “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism†by Richard Milton.
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
Except that evolution has decades of scientific evidence to support it, whereas creationism only has faith to back it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
beer and strippers. can’t go wrong with that combo. :D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 http://www.randi.org. That site is a bastion of reason in an otherwise insane world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just realized why intelligent design is a joke.
Look at the penguins.
They can’t fly, they can’t walk on those feet… Intelligent designer? I think not.
A screw-up. I guess you could find tons of other examples as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gabriel,
Another example: humans. Look at us. We’re ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Proof of the existence of the FSM:
1. If there is a proof that the FSM is the creator of our world, then it must be true
2. There IS a proof. You’re just reading it (notice the headline).
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Intelligent Design is a fraud. I refer you to “The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster†by Bobby Henderson.
\
While one may correctly say that Intelligent Design is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
\
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
\
Intelligent Design is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Pastafarian spouts.
\
Cap’nUberbob
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to give you the short, I’m-feelin’-kinda-lazy response:
Evolution is not a religion, my dear, dear Sean. If you think evolution is a religion, then that explains why you cannot comprehend its value to science and see it as a fraud.
Best to you now and in the beyond.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know, if “God” (or “FSM”) went to all that effort to plant the “false” information that would lead our [divinely created] minds to “discover” “evolution”; what makes you think that “God” would be pleased that “his” design is being thwarted by “his” followers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, a lot of opining going on here. Creation, Evolution, Marinara. I have GOT to party with you guys.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you know why knowbody’s heard of Richard Milton? Its because he’s a nobody trying to get attension by slamming a geniuses work
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just thought of something, maybe God does exist, maybe hes the idiot brother of our great noodly creator. What if he just told people to worship him because hes an idiot! Wow I think maybe I stumbled upon the answer!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Milton, eh … http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html … that Milton? Huh.
/
Have a bowl of belief, be at peace.
RAmen
//sÅŽsÅŽs\\
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Genesis 6 vs 2: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
Note that the bible talks here about God having multiple sons. Sort of like multiple noodly appendages (and we all know about man’s noodly appendage).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…Dude, seriously. I have no problem with the debate on evolution but… come on. It is at LEAST only as crazy as what the creationists are spouting.
I believe firmly in evolution. It’s a whole hell of a lot less insane that claiming that the only possible explanation for the universe is a sentient being. Really. I’m down with science. Bring me rock soild evidence of your point, and I will believe. Until then, sod off.
Peace man. Really. RAmen.
~W.A.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
creationism = theory backed by tradition and faith
evolution = theory backed by scientific evidence that may or may not be valid
FSM creationism = theory backed by scientific evidence AND tradition and faith
It is obvious which of the three is supreme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“maybe they should argue that light reflects off of objects because god wants it to.”
another global warming activist (pirate) Sep 25th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Exactly! And objects fall to earth because that is where god likes things to be! Further more the world is still flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church! If anyone says otherwise I am sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting at the top of my lungs because likes me just the way I am, nice and stupid!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sean-
I don’t really feel like giving you the full argument and trash talking your ignorant mind so richly deserves, but allow me to quote a brilliant man here.
GOD: For people to believe in Me they must have faith. Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.
Man: What about all this crazy crap on the planet? You can’t tell me that’s not proof.
GOD: Oh, ermm….. well, I suppose it is.
Man: So by your own definition, you don’t exsist!
GOD: Oops, I hadn’t thought of that.
GOD promtly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is not a religion. It is a theory based on observable evidence which may very well change as more evidence is gathered.
Evolution is not out in any way to prove or disprove the existence of God, though IF THE EVIDENCE IS CORRECT (a very important point) then it does suggest that a literal interpretation of the Bible may not make any sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LETTER TO SEAN
/
Dear Sean,
/
You are a genius. Of course the best way to prove that youre right is to point to someone and say “he said it”. You could be pointing to a crazy bag lady or a komodo dragon, it would still refute arguments comprehensively.
/
The “theory” of creationism CAN be considered as a scientific theory. All you have to do to make something “scientific” is to buy a petri dish. and maybe some Play-Dough. Then dissect a small furry animal.
/
Evolution is a religion. They have fundraising bake-sales every Sunday and then they eat babies. Sometimes they just feed the babies cocain, just for laughs.
/
You are so smart. Im sure you get four gold stars from your teacher everyday. And I so know you color inside the lines too, a pretty amazing ability.
/
love,
the bad panda.
/
Oh God of All things good and starchy, may you bless this man with all good things in life. And May You Give Him some brain cells, and maybe a kidney because he is obviously a speaking chimp and constantly constipated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ramen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Clearly, string theory is evidence of His existence, and the all reaching of his appendages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
evolution may be just a theory but creationism is true crap. The crap that comes out after you go to that local chinese restraunt. Yeah the one that overloads on MSG.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks! I needed a little smile this morning.
Yup, we don’t know where we came from. Believing in a God, whether the christian god or FSM (ramen), is just as valid as anything else because the origins of the universe cannot be proven. The reason why evolution is proposed is that it can be tested and its effects can be seen. Alas, religion is based entirely on faith not testing.
Hence, evolution is based on rational thought while religion is based on faith or irrational thought. You can have rational thought within an irrational thought. But, you can’t have an irrational thought within a rational thought.
Waits for the next email in the series by “Don Quixote”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes because god is a perfectly sane belief, with lots of hard evidance, just like evolution. in case you havent noticed im being sarcastic. i mean come on evidance vs no evidance, im gonna go for the 2nd 1 (more sarcasm). look evolution is as good as fact, just face it, logically it makes sence, its not easy to accept, and its not “beautifull” like creatrion but it happened, and is happening, face it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
haha I love this! My grandfather sent me an article about it it freaking cracked me up… The majority of the population actually believes that we were simple “created” from nothing. A spaghetti monster is actually much more believable- my texan relatives are gunna flip. YAY!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution is a fraud? Really? WOW and you have proof of this right???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science is about explaining the world around us without resorting to “supernatural” explanations. It is reason-based, not faith-based. Theories are tested through observation and controlled experimentation. Good experiments are reproducible and verifiable. If results are not the same from one experiment to another, scientists do more experiments to figure out why (error in any part of the experiments? Poor methodology? Inaccurate hypotheses? Fraud?).
Intelligent design is not science because it has as the heart of its “theory” a supernatural cause, as does all creationist ideology.
Evolution is a broad theory of the development of life on earth, and simply put means “change over time”. There are a number of mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Natural selection is one of the most prominent. Huge amounts of verifiable, scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution & it’s mechanisms.
The continuing attempt to teach some form of creationism as a science is a waste of everyone’s time. I have no problems with classes on comparative religion or philosophy that cover creationism. But creationism is not science. Those who want to see it treated as science either do not understand the definition of “science”, or are intent on undermining science and critical thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Flamingo, you are obviously correct. I wouldn’t have any problems with a comparative religion course either, in fact I had one in high school and learned a lot. However, I seriously doubt that what ID supporters want is a more open and honest discussion. Would they be willing to have ID taught along side eastern religions and their ‘theories’ on the worlds creation? All religions represented equally and honestly? No, they do not want that. ID seeks to plant Christian ideals ahead of all others. Theirs is not an effort to increase ones understanding but rather to limit it. It is sad and pathetic that knowledge and understanding of our world is scary to some people.
Well I am off to burn in hell…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I truly feel disgusted when i encounter people who argue with evolution. Facts are facts and no amount of faith can change facts. Evolution is backed up by facts and religion is backed up by morons in a pulpit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Naturalistic Evolution Theory is the scientific long road that will eventually lead to our God… the only one true God…. it will be inevitable. Trust me.
Nothing new has evolved… no new class of life has been discovered…. there is only extinction.
Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 that MANY will follow the broad road and enter through the wide gate to DESTRUCTION and that FEW would find the small gate on the narrow road that leads to LIFE. It certainly won’t be his fault in the end that probably over 75% will not enter His kingdom.
Keep eating the noodles and following your beloved spaghetti monster and I’ll keep the Kool-Aid pitcher full.
I’ll take my faith in Jesus over your faith in scientists any day. You love your children that much as to lead them down that wide road just to satisfy your miniscule knowledge of the universe… you seriously are all willing and able to make that bet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is probably true that most of you know 100x about the universe than myself… the problem is that when you compare that to the TOTAL amount of knowledge… we are both like little children…. kind of like comparing a billion to infinity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I have just figured it out. There are in fact two species of humans on this planet. The ones who evolved from a simian type creature melenia ago. The others pregenitors where placed on earth nearly six thousand years ago when god decided to create on man and one woman. This man and woman had two sons one killed the other one. This leaves a man a woman and their son to go forth and be fruitful.
So one species of human is the result of simian natural selection. The other species is the result of incestual inbreeding the likes of which even the backwoods have never seen.
I’d rather come from a monkey than generations of inbreeders.
As for dumbass liberal I would point you to the Afracanized honey bee. As it migrates and breeds with other bees a new pseudo-species is being formed. Yes yes I know its not a truley new and seperate species but that is how evolution works. Oh and new strains of bacteria can be bread. A new species of bacteria is still a new species. Your argument that we know more than you but we dont know it all so you must be right lacks merit. Perhaps you should take a seminar in logical thought.
Your argument based on amount of knowledge as a measuring stick for corectness really says I know a little and I believe in creation those who know more than me believe in evolution. Those who believe in evolution do not know all so they are incorect. I know less than the incorect so my level incoectness must be greater than those who know more than me. Therefore evolution is more correct than creation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The eye has been around since the first complex organisms such as the trilobyte which it’s fossil remains were found in the Cambrian period strata… problem is no complex organisms have been found in pre-Cambrian strata.
1. How can simple cells on their own know there is wavelengths of light that can be seen.
2. How simple cells organize and make the complex parts necessary to view the light especially when ALL parts are necessary for it to work?
How one can look at the brain, the eye, the ear or the mechanism that clots blood and not see the beauty of design?
Jesus claimed that preaching Christ crucified would be a stumbling block to the Jews and FOOLISHNESS to the gentiles and that the foolishness of God is WISER than a man’s wisdom.
Good Day to you all…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am also not insisting that macro evolution isn’t at work. I am just insisting that it would only work if God himself set it in place.
I believe death came into the world through Adam and Eve and I believe that because Jesus never claimed otherwise… it must be a fact. Otherwise Jesus’s death and resurrection would be MEANINGLESS. That would make Christianity a lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Arrhur Clark said that
All things sufficiently advanced appear to be magic.
Like earthworms in the garden soil — we are unaware of the “magic” of life about us. Intellegent design? Evolution?
Both can indeed co-exist — some evidence exist for both. We tend to believe only our senses, so “scientific evidence” tends to surface as the explanation. String theory has given way to multiverse, the sun dosen’t revolve aroung the earth.
We have been wrong before, what’s different about today?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dumbass Liberal
its nice to see not all the Christian posters are idiots but what your up against is a lot of people with complete faith in what they beleive in. We also face a grouping of the same type of people, you shouldn’t bother yourself about us (even though it is funny the response some get). We will either burn in hell or not we’ll see when we get there or anywhere else for that matter. In the meantime I’m going to beleive what I want no matter what anyone says, sorry but no fundamentalist, Crazy or intelligent, is going to change that.
Your friend
the antichrist
Ncik666
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr liberal
I submit that whereas we can demonstrate the mechanics of life none can fathom the “imbuing” of the soul on that collection of cells and biology. The recognition of fair or right and wrong are perhaps an anthropology visited upon us by societal education, but there is still (in your gut — instinct?) an inner voice that stills abberant behavior. We are instinctivly drawn toward the ordering of our life by a higher power — The Greeks and Romans created a god for each season, planetary body, and hairy toe searching for that connection to the universe. We have all felt this at one time or another. We can’t deny evolution — it has happened within our own lifetime, mice are smarter bacteria are resistant to medication, humnans are more robust. The intangibleness ascribed God, faith, love, generosity exists also
I like the way you think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ncik666
I’m the last to proselytize, and wouldn’t presume to suggest a course of belief or disbelief. You are unique in ideas and personality, by virtue of that very uniqueness an open mind is a huge asset. Faith is by it’s very nature is absolute — you do or you don’t — when you sit on the couch you commit fully to that action. (I lay on the couch a lot — my wife says so) I can admire those who are fully commited. That commitment can be a barrier to new or fresh ideas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“1. How can simple cells on their own know there is wavelengths of light that can be seen.
2. How simple cells organize and make the complex parts necessary to view the light especially when ALL parts are necessary for it to work?”
This is a common problem among creationists. You assume because you, personally, never having studied the chemical nature of light sensors or prokaryote social behaviour, do not have an answer there must be no answer at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Dumbass Liberal
What use is half an eye? Not that AGAIN. How many times does it need to be pointed out that irriducible complexity (I think thats the term) does NOT, in fact, prove ID. Evolution is not just an additive process, things can be taken away too; just feel the top of your ass-crack next time you come up for air to find evidence of something that we no longer have.
Watch out for the parasitic wasps. They’re gonna getcha!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sigh. I didn’t want to have to do this, but you, Dumbass Liberal, have forced me to actually explain why I believe in evolution. And by the way, I am not a dumbass. Unless you were calling yourself a dumbass, in which case (insert harsh criticism here).
FIRST OF ALL: You believe very strongly in Christianity. That’s very nice for you, but how can you prove that your God is the correct one and the supreme being is not, as Bobby Henderson suggests, a FSM? And don’t give me that ‘the Bible is absolute fact’ crap. That’s not proof. That’s just an excuse for me to laugh at you with my ‘dumb liberal’ friends.
SECONDLY: As for your eye argument- there are very simple creatures in existance now, with very simple sorts of ‘eyes’ that could easily have existed first as a survival mechanism to find food. So that’s my defense of that.
THIRDLY: There is, as I think someone else rightly pointed out, several kinds of evolution happening as we speak. THe thing about evolution is it’s gradual. As in ‘glacier accumulating, moving twelve miles and melting over eons’ gradual. You can’t watch it happen in a month, or a year, or a lifetime. What you can watch is Darwin’s actual theory: natural selection. For that I’ll refer you to any (normal) science text book ever written.
AS A FINAL NOTE: It may be interesting to point out that in his time, Darwin was highly ridiculed by the mostly Christian oriented science community. He eventually won them over, which gives some more evidence to you that evolution is not total junk.
RAmen.
~W.A.
P.S.: How do you know that God gides evolution? DO you have proof? Food for thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s an interesting dilemma, oh mighty spaghetti monster.
If (your judeo-christian religion here) is correct, then at the time of your death, you will meet with (your maker here) and go on to your heavenly rewards.
If there is no afterlife or (your creator here), then at the time of your death, you will be gone.
So, if you’re right, you win. If you’re wrong, you will never know, so in effect you still win, by at least having a belief that sustains and cheers you during your (one and only) life.
I do envy (your religion here) at times. Devout agnostic that I am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A quick google search turned up a couple of sites on the evolution of the eyes in trilobites. With the exception of the trilobite which had the most advanced eyes many creatures in the late precambrian and early cambrian had pseudo eyes. You know if you want to believe that god created eyes thats fine. I kind of lean in that direction. But illregardless teaching that god created eyes in a state funded school system should not be allowed. And D. Liberal before you bust out the eye argument again you should do a quick google search and see if perhaps there isnt an explination for what you say cant be explained.
http://www.trilobites.info/eyes.htm
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/TrilobiteArmsRace.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This all goes to show that my theory is correct: we are all mutants. Some of just know we are mutants. Others refuse to be one with their mutant natures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As for what use half an eye is… approximately half as much use as a whole eye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear “Dumbass Liberal”,
Your argument is cyclical. Science can’t be correct because it would make christianity false; christianity is true; therefore science is false, which proves christianity is true. So if you accept as an axiom the assumption that christianity is true, you’re able to prove it using that assumption. Can you really not understand the magnitude of your stupidity?
Teresa – you’re describing pascal’s wager. Here are a few pages about it – but beware: They sometimes involve math, which is almost as evil as science. If you believe in numbers, check out these links:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
Enjoy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
let’s say a species with only dark/light-seeing eyes, wich means they see if there is light and if there is no light, prefer to eat plants. those grow where light is. So now they know light= food. they would servive, while the others search in the dark.
Well, i like to be a muntant, but why do only so less mutants know what they are:
See, if you raise a dog, he thinks he is in his pride with you and your family. he thinks(yes he thinks) he is one of us. that’s it. Dog-mutants aren’t so far away from human-mutants. just some million of years. take it easy. You’re not in live to prove yourself. You can live like: 1. the community allows you to, 2. you want to. no need to be afraid to drink alcaholics, if you are muslim, for example. The only hell you can get in, is addiction. But this is a quiet tough one.
You are 100% responsible for your doings – there is no destiny from above.
It’s too easy to say “he want it for me” …just say “Shit happens, I made a mistake/desiccion and accept the results of it.”
–
sry for my english, I’m, from the (almoast) other side of this “Earthdisc”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There may be bones in the sand but GOD sent a bird in the hand and one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
now
and we are created by GOD and GOD is real and watching us all.
Anyone that ever saw me pray knows, something is not the obvious with me.
There is a supernatural force and HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE
the LORD GOD IS WITH THEE force.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religious whackos?
Satan get back from me.
I pray and things happen.
You are seeing modern day signs and they are bonafide
miracles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
King James is the one who needs to bow down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am Mary sent back. I wrote the Queen of England a letter and she was on the news with it. I am not a fake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am much braver than you think I am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I believe death came into the world through Adam and Eve and I believe that because Jesus never claimed otherwise… it must be a fact. Otherwise Jesus’s death and resurrection would be MEANINGLESS. That would make Christianity a lie.”
Quite the house of cards, isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey you disconcerned mouthy ones, you ought to be more concerned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well I believe that human kind needs to be taught a lesson and shit is about to hit the fan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
King James liked selling BIBLES, it distracted mankind from reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am Mary sent back, I got renamed Catherine.
I live a normal life now.
Semi anyhow.
Things have got to change though.
I don’t like living in a warring world
and being unsafe in it.
Miracles are happening because of my prayers to GOD.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The birth was documented and the government confirmed that Mary had been reborn. The church asked for proof and I gave it to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Take your meds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mutant, mutant, mutant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fascinating and at the same time a bit scary to read the hate mail. But one thing strikes me as odd, a lot (well, at least some) of writers argue that evolution is all fake since the bible says otherwise but why arent there any(are there?) writers who argue that the earth is flat? This is also stated in the bible and I would expect at least some writers to claim it to be the truth and that anyone who says otherwise will burn in hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Patrick,
Please give me the book and verse in the bible where this claim is made.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not impressed with the “scientific” evidence given regarding the evolution of the eye… sounds like philosophical smoke and mirrors to me .
When I consider Behe’s work regarding Irreducible Complexity and William Demski’s work regarding the probability of evolution, I personally feel that the likelyhood of macro evolution occurring based only on random events is quite laughable
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yup, veryone is nuts… I like the mutant theory.
I begrudge no one their belief no matter how laughable it is… a big santa in the sky is cute… really. May his noodly appendage heal all wounds. RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you can look at a list of eyes that actually exist, each more complex than the last, running from hardly being able to tell what direction a light source is in to spotting mice from however high hawks spot mice at, and believe that natural evolution of an eye is actually impossible… I just don’t know, man. That’s the sort of willful blindness that makes our discussing eyes seem ironic somehow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I challenge any and every one here to prove that the universe has not yet ceased to exist.
It was UnMade by PacMan, the All-Devourer!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What I find far stranger though, is that, here, in South Africa, it is the liberals who tend creationist, and the conservatives that believe in evolution.
Of course, there is no proof of existence, except for things in existence. Obviously that is circular logic meant to confound us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sometimes it is convenient for religion to use logic to find holes in scientific theories, but never to support it’s own.
I’m going to go make some wine into water.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTi MONSTER!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religious or Scientific, what’s all the fuss about?
It’s all ancient Hermeneutics.
Who can make me a hummingbird without using any other hummingbirds? Please post :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr “DL”(great choice of name for yourself, by the way)would you mind telling us, if Behe et al. have shown ALL living organisms to have the same designer? I don’t know how they can, as by definition the designer cannot be subjected to any study or examination. As such, quite possibly there are an infinite number of designers.
And did designers need their own designers?Again, quite possibly, because they cannot be examined. Unless, of course, the Great Designer is the Fly Spaghetti Monster. He doesn’t need one, because his Gospel says so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If evolution is a fraud explain to me then what the skeletons of dinosaurs and cavemen are. Supposedly the world started with Adam and Eve so where do the dinosaurs fit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Bobby’s last reply,
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A bird in the pants is just painful!
Ow! Ow! Keep your beak to yourself, you nasty pigeon!
Evolution is a religion in the same way that health is a disease. Or in the same way that genius may be considered a form of mental impairment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, um…Sean? Evolution is not a religion, otherwise we evolutionists would be going to church, singing hymns about and to evolution. Religion=faith. Evolution=science. And believing in something just because something tells you it is so (like the Bible) is like jumping of off a cliff because someone told you there was a giant soft, cushy bed at the bottom. Science involves research, facts, theories, and (dare I say it?) INTELLIGENCE! So…unfounded blind faith, or hard logic, science, and intelligence? I dunno! Also, if you are looking for TRUTH, I suggest the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by our much loved prophet, Bobby Henderson. ‘Tis true. Yeeeeaaaaaahhhhh. Um. I’ll go.
P.S.-Sean, please stop being an idiot.
Love,
Emma
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not impressed with the “scientific†evidence given regarding the evolution of the eye… sounds like philosophical smoke and mirrors to me .
Yes and the Milton you quote is soooo scietific.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I am not impressed with the “scientific†evidence given regarding the evolution of the eye… sounds like philosophical smoke and mirrors to me .
Yes and the Milton you quote is soooo scietific. ”
Dear Shawn,
You’ve read how many books on the subject?
I’m going to take a wild guess on and say none. It seems to me that it’s very possible indeed that you’ve only read one book, the Bible which is the flimsy work of fiction ever born of man.
For you to cite solid scientific deduction and make shame of it whilst hiding behind your ignorant beliefs is really badly hypocritical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dumbass Liberal suggests that the complexity of the eye is evidence of intelligent design. Could he explain therefore why the mamallian eye is the wrong way round?
In many invertebrates (for example the common mollusc)the nerves to the photoreceptor cells are behind them, leaving no gat and maximum visal accuity (moluscs can’t see 20/20 because they lack the brain to interpret the signal).
In mamallian eyes, the retina is inside out. The nerve fibres that carry the signals from the cones and rods (the photoreceptors) lie on top of them. In orger to reach the brain, they have to pass through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain. This creates the “blind spot”.
A designer who designed such a duff design can’t be that intelligent. However, if we go with evolution, and look at the evolutionary record, we see that mamallian photoreceptors evolved from brain tissue, then the wiring makes sense as it came from inside. We can also suggest why evolution hasn’t solve the “inside out” problem. To do so, many generations of “intermediates” would be blind whilst the nerves and photoreceptors swapped round – hardly an evolutionary advantage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Science and religion are but two boats floating under the same bridge steering away from eachother, it is depressing that they can not work together.” ~Unknown
Science is viewed in certain fields as a religion, and in fact it is followed as a religion, the only thing is that it isn’t really an organized religion if you will, it has no creed, church, or any one text to follow. I do not follow science a religion, rather science all to often makes much more logical sense than any religion, and quite frankly the only religions that have ever sparked my interest is Buddhism and Taoism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whereas faith is taught, science is learned. The mere word “faith” attests to devotion to a certain belief system with no substantive support. The Bible is a set of pages written, edited and collected by men.
FAITH is a dish served cold to the unthinking, tasteless masses without sauce or parmesan cheese.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dumbass Liberal! Go to book of Ezekiel and you you will find that it is stated that Jerusalem is at the center of earth. This can ONLY mean that earth is flat. So it definately seems to me that anyone that claims that earth is not flat will burn in hell. Or do you just have to burn in hell if you disregard certain parts of the bible? Which parts can you disregard and is it the lord who tells us what junk in the book not to pay any attention to and what parts we have to follow not to end up in hell? Or is it up to anyone to make this judgement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love you American people.
My poor european mind cannot grasp if all this hate mail is a fake or not. Do such people really REALLY exist ?
But I love the concept of the FSM.
I want to believe. I want to become a pirate !
And the plank for all the unbelievers ! (if taht expression exists in english)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its not just an American thing. They do exist in Europe as well! And Im not just speaking about the Vatican here.
But I agree that when reding the hate mail one wonders if a bunch of it isnt fake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
these people are getting stupider all the time. they should keep there mouths shut and try to accept this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And why are you telling us about your little book and stupid theoires, everyone knows that humanity started with a mountain, some trees and a midgit…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not humanity, but the entire universe. The universe itself is a 4D sphere, but inside it, He made the mountain, trees, and midgit. humanity didn’t really get started untill He gave the midgit a female.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Shawn,
You’ve read how many books on the subject?
I’m going to take a wild guess on and say none. It seems to me that it’s very possible indeed that you’ve only read one book, the Bible which is the flimsy work of fiction ever born of man.
For you to cite solid scientific deduction and make shame of it whilst hiding behind your ignorant beliefs is really badly hypocritical.
Stri-I think you have misunderstood me. I am not a creationalist I favor evolution of the not ID variety. You are correct that I have read the bible. My beliefs in evolution may or may not be ignorant.
In edition to the bible I have read many books on the origin of species. Including “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism†by Richard Milton. The point I was making about Milton is that he does not adhere to the “scientific method”. Milton does not even adhere to the principal of truthfully representing facts. I guess I should have been more clear when I was criticising Milton. Not to say that Milton does not raise some good points. Now if you did understand what I was attempting to say…well we will just have to disagree on whether or not Richard Milton constitutes “solid scientific deduction”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you’re all assholes — Zeus shall arise and smite all of you with your modern gods and beliefs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dont believe in the FSM.When man first saw him there probably was a food fight with spaghetti.so if you were “touched by his noodly appendage” maybe you should wash.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you “That” Fatima?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes. the ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s the third time in a week I’ve come back to hate mail looking for a cheap laugh, and it’s the same one people are chatting about. I’m beginning to feel my humour relies oin no small part on the unhinged psychotics who end up with their emails sent here; like laughing at those retards who get hit in the groin and sent it in to TV, I moved on from that, shouldn’t I move beyond the written equivalent too? Or is it funny ‘cos they don’t understand?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How does one become a pastafarianism? Is there somekind of iniciation or something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry – pastafarianist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or is it without “t”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, won’t we have the last laugh when we are all standing before His Noodly Appendages, awaiting our judgement, and He notes the LOSERS who failed to devote their lives to the worship of His Starchy Goodness? I look forward to that day, when the heathens are cast into that lake of hellfire and Prego for all eternity! RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Melisa,
First, you have to learn how to spell. At present, you are suited only to belong to more organized religions such as Christinanity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Change with the times but not the music and the music brings us all joy and thanks to a girl and thanks to a boy. Thanks for the music of our lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Suits me to a t and that small cross is no t around my neck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Moon over Miami and Cousin Vinny.
Sing it Cher for Cathie.
Sing it Britney for Cathie.
Sing it Garth Brooks for Cathie.
Sing for Cathie WORLD
she taught you how to sing.
I’d like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony.
My song used on a Coca Cola commercial.
HEY, thanks for nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You know, it doesn’t get any better than this.
Yeah, I will go eat some worms.
Some day, I will die alone some day.
Maybe find myself in the cold feeling like
the world is all around me.
Cold cruel world…
you want a peice of me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Drew Street Miracle lady…is ALIVE but how well is she?
When you took every last dime of hers?
That’s debatable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way, “Bobby’s last reply” is the reincarnated-mary lady that sends me ~50+ emails a day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
let me just start off with saying that EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY FOR HOW WE CAME TO BE… it does not explain how everything in this universe was created. theories that are to be put to arguement with the theory of god is the big bang theory(which myself dont believe in). i believe that we as humans truly cant even fathom how the existance of all we know came to be, but the belief in god is just the “lazy” theory of how we came to be, people just use god to fill the gaps of things we cant explain.. let me start off by saying that there is no proof stating that god exists, and without religion there would be no god. the only so called “proof” about god is religion and the teachings they give. so let me give you my theory on how god doesnt exist… first off, without religion there would be no god because there would be no one to teach us the bible which intern would mean that we wouldnt know that “god” could even exist.. and every religion has the basis that there religion is the “TRUE” religion or that there religion is right… so lets just say that ONE out of the MILLION other religions ended up being the “TRUE” one.. then that would mean that all the other religions that have gotten to the status that they have gotten today(such as christianity) would of been fabricated.. so who is to say that ALL the religions that we know of today arent FABRICATED?? now i do believe in FAITH. i believe that people can have such a belief in something that it can change them.. the FAITH in god is very real, but the existince of god, in my opinion, is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
good point shane…
if one in one million is accurate…
then
…1
——-….= 0.000001
1000000
rounding to three significant figures, a common practice, that is 0
hence, approximately 0 religions are accurate.
.
and to henderob, you poor guy… we can commiserate with your pain
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry, i meant approximately 0.00 religions are accurate
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am a follower of the bologneseian school of pastafarianism, and it is quite clear to me (and all right-thinking people) that you are wrong because my Saucy Lord spoke to me personally in a voice that sounded a bit like me talking to myself and said so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Trying to argue with a creationist using logic is futile… I just don’t understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
does anyone else think that everyone who has “spoken to GOD” is always a middle aged person with no friends. ATTENTION ATTENTION this is what they cry, after their “devine experience” they seemed to get a lot of attention from people who believe, or are trying to prove to people that the christion god exists.
If this isnt the case ive got 1 word for you: SCHIZOPHRENIA, they hear voices inside their heads and immediately assume that it was god
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Luke 23:34 (New International Version)
34 . Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
… Brothers, Your cause was good but you strayed and got pulled in deep, I pray that you find forgiveness before the true KING OF KINGS returns to claim what is rightfully His.
My thoughts are with your souls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jon, your message is kind and seems sincere, and even displays your apparent inkling into what is going on here. You lost me at “I pray…..” Go ahead and pray for my soul if you feel it is necessary, but, please, leave Elvis out of this. The man is dead, already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/0892817321
wounder what kind of souce is on the FSM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For fuck’s sake… who cares what sort of deity or lack there of you believe in as long as you honor life, honor death, and try to be a good person?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
KR THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK….
i believe in living life as a good person and not following the road that “god” supossibly gave us. people who are full-time into religion seem to think that people are unable to live life happily and as a good person without the faith in god.. i live life because i want to live life.. i make the choices because i choose them, not because theres some pre-destiny that “god” has laid out for me. its so pathetic how the human race needs to have a reason to live life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
just believe silly faces!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look out! He’s got a book!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All religions do not say that their religion is the only true one.
Eastern faiths such as Hinduism and Buddhism are very different from Christianity, Islam and Judaism. These religions do not require you to believe in one particular book/prophet, else you will rot in hell, etc. nor have I heard any of the practitioners/leaders of eastern faiths say that theirs is the only path to the truth.
Moral values such as fairness, compassion, etc. are preached by all religions and God is the central point of most religions but it is the idea of God that differs. And that idea has determined the course of history.
God in a spiritual sense can be very different from the religious sense. There can be belief in a supreme being/power that is away from religion. Religion is actually more of a social construct, invented by human beings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah! What he said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would just like to point out (based on what Lotus Eyes said) that as far as I’ve ever been able to figure out, in Judaism you a) don’t have to be Jewish to make heaven, and b) there really isn’t a ‘hell’. Actually, the afterlife is extremly undefined and vague. Christianity has the most ‘well-defined’ concept of the afterlife as far as I can tell. (I don’t know enough about Islam to compare, though.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t see why you people even bother to furnish these god-bothering wankers with replies. Bollocks to philosophical argument. What most of them really seem to need is the “love of god” beating OUT of them.
I’d like to propose an annual international “Punch A Christian In The Face Week”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
we could, but then we’d be no better then they are. Plus, punch a man once, and go to jail. Insult him verbally, and he’ll come back for more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whilst i’m sure that insulting the religiously challenged is good (otherwise the FSM would not have made it fun) i can’t help but feel we are there to help them.
for did not the noodly creator make the first midget? this is obviously meant to be construed as intellectual midget as well as physical. The piratical chosen are there to carry out his work and guide them to the paths of righteousness that lead to his holy ship, so that they may all walk the plank of enlightenment and give us all a hearty laugh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well spoken spider.
FSM pwns
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I still like the beer and strippers idea. No, not idea. scratch that. Philosophy, Life, Life-time Philosophy!!!!
P.S.
42, feel the awesome might of this number
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
evolution has science backing it
all your stupid little religious zealots can think of is “creationism” which has only faith and what a pastor force feeds you backing it up.
try to be a little more open minded and much less retarded
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
but evolution has nothing to do how we were created it just explains how we have changed over time.. any theory of how we came to be has no facts to back it up. god is just as valid of a theory as the big bang, or reincarnation.. even a rock can be put as a theory as how we came to be because theres no proof behind any of them.. i just choose not to believe in god because it sounds to much like a fairy tale… and like they say, if its to good to be true, it probably isnt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You really want to know how you were created?
You know when you have played a game too long and want to do something new? Or, when you wanted a new toy as a young child after being bored with your old ones?
Well, that’s what was going on with this vast emptiness that the universe used to be. Think of it as a cosmic toilet. I pissed in the cosmic toilet. I then attempted to flush, but because “someone” had stopped it up the water inside just got higher and higher. That’s the so called “big bang” I want to call it the big plug. But some people JUST WON”T LISTEN.
And I’m not a theory. I’m in your computer. Eating your datazes. And what’s wrong with living after death?
I mean sure there’s the downside. ( A WICKED HANGOVER FOR ETERNITY) but I mean there’s medication for that.
WHy do you think angels speak so softly?
Because I have a constant hangover. When I made you in my image. DAMN. I should not have put in the ability to imbibe alochol.
TEQUILA!
As the kids say these days “Wewt”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Primero ¡Fuerza Venganza.org!… su sola existencia me llena de optimismo, porque significa que el mundo está mejorando “es más libreâ€â€¦ ups!, sorry a las mujeres-mártires que viven sojuzgadas por los idólatras del Corán… el dÃa que nazca una Venganza.org anti-Islam, ¡sà que podremos cantar What a wonderful world!
Voy a aprovechar para hacer una crÃtica: Tanto creadores, como colaboradores y etc. de Venganza.org ¡son unos desagradecidos! No he visto ni un párrafo que agradezca con sincera reflexión al Diseño Inteligente, su invalorable aporte para el nacimiento de un movimiento como el Pastafarismo.
Y ni que hablar de su aporte para poner el tema de la evolución humana en el centro del debate, acaso mundial.
Bueno, pero no pidamos más (por ahora al menos), ya es un logro que las atribuladas mentes de la gente hayan incorporado la posibilidad de que no hayamos sido creados hace 10.000 años.
Pedirles que además estudien la teorÃa de Darwin… serÃa una utopÃa absurda.
El Pastafarismo ya ha logrado el objetivo de alertar al mundo sobre la velada manipulación con que el dogmatismo religioso pretende “lavar la cabeza†de los jóvenes para asegurarse futuros fieles.
Pero los religiosos no son los únicos dogmáticos, al igual que el Pastafarismo no es la única nueva “religión†contemporánea.
Claro que el Pastafarismo es honorable, reconoce su dogmatismo, pero esta “otra nueva†religión, integrada por patéticos sectarios “se disfraza de ciencia†y usurpa el nombre de “escépticos†para sus fieles.
Es claro que aquellos que adhieren a una religión o al ateÃsmo, son por igual “creyentesâ€, pues de hecho no puede probarse la existencia ni la inexistencia de Dios, “la ausencia de evidencia no es evidencia de ausenciaâ€, decÃa el gran Carl Sagan.
Los integrantes de esta nueva religión, pueden identificarse fácilmente navegando gran parte de las webs de la “comunidad escépticaâ€; imbuidos en un fanatismo que hasta Bin Laden envidiarÃa, tergiversan, omiten, interpretan, a los descubrimientos cientÃficos de tal modo que puedan usarlos para expandir su dogma: No Hay Dios.
Y esto hacen con la evolución, sosteniendo como cierta una teorÃa como la de Darwin, que significó quizá uno de los modelos más importantes para el avance de la biologÃa, pero que ha sido categóricamente demostrada como falsa, entre muchas cosas por la antropologÃa molecular, por el rastreo de la evolución de los factores de transcripción genómicos, etc.
¿Qué le enseñamos entonces a nuestros niños? Bien, el Diseño Inteligente seguro que no… ¡pero menos aún una teorÃa cientÃfica que se ha demostrado falsa!, porque eso sà que es una “herejÃa cientÃficaâ€.
El honor de la ciencia está en juego, y si nos descuidamos, esta religión de “pseudo-escépticos†va a terminar siendo mucho más nociva que el Islam, pues aprovechando el hartazgo del mundo hacia los dogmas religiosos, pero también el alarmante desconocimiento cientÃfico, engaña descaradamente.
Y es claro su éxito por muchos de los comentarios aquà vertidos.
La teorÃa de Darwin no es un fraude… simplemente ES FALSA.
Opinar lo contrario sólo puede obedecer a la ignorancia… o en el caso de los pseudo-escépticos al delirio dogmático.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Holy flirkin shnit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, my. Am I going to have to reach into the dark recesses of my mind to try to understand Spanish? The dark recesses of my mind are scary. Along with high school and college Spanish, there’s the painful memory of the time my friends and I bought some pot, found that it was cut with oregano, and smoked it anyway. We smelled like marinara for a week! Ah, youth.
By the way, this is in no way meant to trash the Spanish language, culture, or any Spanish-speaking people. It’s a beautiful language that I spent six years of my life learning, but, alas, that was some time ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AAArrrr the language of the spanish main, dubloons and gold, cannon fire and scurvy. if i wasn’t such an ignorant old seadog i’d debate yer, and either drink to yer or make yer walk the plank..
.
So here’s to yer and mind yer step on the plank, that way we’re covered for both….
.
Mind the oregano kids, just say no.
unless there’s a saucy wench involved in which say si…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I have tried to understand it, Frank seems to be a pastafarian-minded person. Something about Bin Laden and Carl Sagan. Maybe I should go smoke some oregano to tap into some of that state-specific learning. You know what I mean. I learned Spanish when I was, well, high for several years, and now that I’ve come down a bit, it’s incomprehensible to me. Maybe I’ll understand Spanish again in FSM heaven! Yet another benefit of the beer volcano!
Frank, I am in no way making fun of your post. I’m making fun of myself because, although I could read novels in teh original Spanish at one time, I can’t understand what you wrote. Somehow, it sounds so passionate in Spanish, whatever it was you said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
I just read a few of the following posts (after OEJ) and you could be right about memes. The ID/creationist theory, it is not a theory, has just chosen bits out of others theories to tack together something they think may help them. Wouldn’t surprise me if their belief gene was thought up using the memes hypothesis. What a bunch of wankers.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@NowtheworldhasMeaning
It is something I know little about but hopefully can learn anyone advise any books on this subject?
I’d go with Richard Dawkins. I am particularly interested in “The Selfish Gene” which I still havn’t had a chance to read. Over my next break definately.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The God Gene
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm
Shows how much christians are confused about what they actually believe in.
my conscience: “Niki you are supposed to be working”
me:”I know it’s just that the FSM site is so good. There are all these really good posts there and it’s a worthwhile cause. Besides Friday is our holy day.”
conscience “Finish your work first ok I need those figures”
me: ok ok
Catch you guys later
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And another one @ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml
‘God gene’ discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 14/11/2004)
Religious belief is determined by a person’s genetic make-up according to a study by a leading scientist.
After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
His findings were criticised last night by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a “god gene” and say that the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith – that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain’s electrical impulses………”
Interesting in the context of the ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE post
“…….Hence, those who believe have a selective advantage over those who do not. Belief in a supernatural being leads to more offspring.”
Warning: Believing in god can make you pregnant.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry guys, both those articles are identical.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also my ideas of where this might have come from stand corrected.
There are just so many amazing things going on in molecular biology (in all the biological sciences actually), due to the modern molecular techniques that are now available, that it is impossible to keep up with them.
There is a hell of a backload leftover from before modern techniques were available. Things like malaria as well as a whole lot of genetically/non-genetically
inherited diseases (bacterial,viral) and developmental processes ect ect.
The ability to manipulate and sequence DNA and thus genes, has just exploded the biological fields.
I guess I am a bit protective against junk science creeping in especially when research has come this far. Darwinian theory is the basis on which experiments are designed to carry out reseach in a numbers of fields concerning human biology as well as the biology of all other living things. It should be seriously protected.
No doubt there will be some consequences due to the explosion of these new molecular technologies. Population numbers for a start, due to disease cures and genetic modifications to produce food crops for places like Africa ect. But each and every individual on the planet has a right to fruits of any scientific discovery. Unlike the fundamentalist christians who may “proclaim only certain people can come into OUR heaven/hell” scientists don’t differentiate who may have the benefits of their discoveries.
It is impossible to completely keep junk science out. After a few years (maybe sooner) they are discredited by peer review. In the meantime people might read their stuff and agree with it. If people only read the junk, then that is all they know. It will probably impress them if they have only a limited understanding of the concepts.
I am still not sure whether all “clerics” disagree with the “belief gene”. I think maybe some, as in the ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE post, think the concept handy to swing the ID/creationist debate. I can’t see how, but I haven’t thought about it enough. Then again they may not have been handed down the final orders from their head honcho yet as to what they believe. I find the whole thing (ID vs Evolution) really weird in this day and age and still find it hard to believe it is actually happening. Its not like the facts aren’t available or anything.
AnywayI was just reading over some stuff at home and got a bit passionate here.
Thats enough.
Tired! Rambling on!
RAmen
ps Did I say I really really like molecular biology?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nikiee
I agree with you completely. My girlfriend did a Biology Degree which covers Microbiology and Genetics. She now has a very astounding level of understanding on biology. But even during her studying time she was amazed at the amount of people that still question Evolution, including Lecturers and students (but most of this seemed to be due to their religious background).
Doing casual observations I have noticed that people need to believe in something. Ranging from your major religions to crystal balls, ghosts and many more strange things. The conclusion I came to is that peoples fears stop them from accepting Evolution. It’s a need of self importance stops them from accepting the idea of the fact that when you die that is it. The fact is your life. You only get one go at it and there is no such place like heaven or hell. Its this fear of death that is what keeps all religions going. Because when we die we get to go to heaven and enjoy our self’s in a stress free environment where I don’t have to go to work everyday to pay my bills, work 12 hour shifts 6 days a week just to be able to eat.
The other thing I have noticed is peoples urge to be part of a group/collective. For example people are proud to support a football team and wear their football shirts. Or join a religious group or go out with a group of people, we naturally need groups. I believe this goes back to a basic survival instinct where your odds of survival are higher in a group then as a single being. Hence our urge to be with people and socialise. This is so in build that when people don’t socialise they get lonely.
The other thing about groups and group activity is the support they provide this is something else that makes religions so appealing. For example: You move to a different city. You know that when you go to a church on Sunday you will find many like minded people there. Who will help you (Group Support) settle in to your new community. This provides many survival advantages helps you learn more about the area and where everything is (in hunting terms where the berries are, fresh water etc).
So my personal conclusion is religious/social organisations will be a major part of human interaction and social structure for many years to come. Until the time comes where we as individuals are brought up in a religious neutral environment where once you a fully educated past the age of 16 and only then will you be allowed to make a choice on joining a religion. This will give the individual a choice and the time to develop their own points of view instead of being introduced to them and a very young age.
Sorry about my ramblings.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, so yeah, I totally made the whole thing up. Serious? Other than trying to help the ID folks see the reason they are as they are (on a much more biological scale, if they could clue in) due to the randomness of evolution, no. As far as I know, just as many people in the know (of which I really am not) about Maslow do not agree with him as agree with him. I’m glad however I rated that 0.5/10 for my attempt at Darwinian theory. Room for improvement keeps me from getting bored. GO ME!
And oh, yeah, as a recovering Catholic, I used to think belief in god may make some people pregnant (lots of families with 10 or more kids in my neighborhood). The nuns told me in school that kissing could, too. As a kid I couldn’t reconcile however, why the nuns were never pregnant (except one but that’s a whole other story, something to do with kissing).
So anyway, thanks for all of your constructive criticism, and if you find that “belief gene” let me know so I can incorporate it into my next version of “truth.”
Cheers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the foundation of your faith was that Catholicism and kissing made you pregnant, perhaps it is best for everyone that you moved on.
A pregnant nun is the best kind of nun anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this a non-accepting pastafarian? I thought they didn’t exist. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“according to a study by a leading scientist”
.
I just love this phrase and thought it needed to be highlighted. Ever notice how when evidence is really shady or the research is suspect that the authors are “a leading scientist” or “a leading doctor”, but never a name?
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lote You are so spot on and put it accross perfectly.
A big RAmen :)
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
Sorry if I was a bit harsh on you. If you read my post, ( two posts before your last) following my critiscism, you will read my correction as to my vague references to the origins of the “belief gene”. After referencing an article the term was actually coined/ attributed to molecular geneticist.
As I said I had remembered, vaguely, hearing of something along these lines.
Your school experience is the reason I get so angry about indocrinating kids with religion school. It just doesn’t prepare for the real word. The last ones I want to blame are the people who were subjected to this type of education. So my anger is not directed at you.
My father was brought up in a catholic minded home and attended a catholic school run by nuns. (Later on in his life he always laughed about them hitching their habits up teaching the boys to play football) However when we were kids (7 kids in mine) we were never really exposed to religion at home. My fathers attitude was that we could choose for ourselves whether we wanted to go there, so to speak. None of us did. He also always pointed out to me the wonders of nature. I learn’t in my 20s that he reaaly absolutely detested, well I would call it organised religion. I did actually choose to go to church from about 8-12. I think for the reasons lote was stating. A few of my good friends went. My cousin is heamistress of a catholic school. She never brings religion up with me and she is also a great person. I think what I am getting at is that
it is the organisation that most pepole are atttacking (unless you send nasty hate mail in the name of Jesus, then you are fair game) not the individuals who really haven’t had a choice in be exposed to this sort of indoctrination. That is the thing this site is fighting against.
Niki
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I lie, my cousin is not a heamistress, she is actually a “headmistress” of a catholic school.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No worries Nikkiee, I have a pretty thick skin (ok literalists, not really, and it is due to nurture not nature!). You may guess I am fond of stirring the stew a bit. I must say that I thought your comment about probing C. elegans and fruitflies was clever (TH Morgan is probably spinning in his grave). To follow that hypothetical thread, how about checking the Mus genome first? Mammals tend to display more altruistic behaviors than insects/roundworms, and ok here’s a stretch… might be more likely to believe in a suppernatural being or (as you state) might be more likely to seek out spaghetti than the inverts.
Gotta run. Probably won’t post for a while. Lot’s to do and little time for it. Enjoy and pass the marinara.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
After checking up a bit on Maslow, I think I am a bit more aware as to the theme of your original post which I responded to. I think lote was on the right track there.
Just for others: (I have inverted a pyramid which obviously could not be produced here)
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
1. Physiological (biological needs)
2. Safety
3. Love/belonging
4. Status (esteem)
5. Actualization
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with Maslow hierachy for society as a whole either. I agree that belonging to a united group covers all these needs. However I disagree that this should necessarily be a religous group.
I’m am also biased. I believe an appreciation for the wonder of science unites scientists from very different fields of scientific endeavour all over the world . We will all tell you that our chosen field is the most important. But we all laugh about that (except for the fundamentalists/ fanatics of course) together and know these fields are too relative to ecah other to separate. Example: geology can tell us why certain plants grow where they do. That is not to say I think everyone should become a scientist.
Many of us may not get around to repoducing offspring either, but there are plenty of kids in the world today who are happy for us shower our paternal/ maternal instincts on them. I have childless friends who go to some of the most remote and savage places in the world helping communities in areas such as medicine, growing food, purifying water and basic hygiene education against infectious diseases. Many also contribute to this out of their own pocket for these endeavours. Even when funds have been provided by some organisation they rarely meet the real costs involved.
Most of these people, while appreciative, would be highly embarrassed to have their name up in lights for doing this. They consider it to be just basic common human decency and they get their satisfaction out of being able to help these people. I feel is that satisfaction drives a lot of them. The other side of that coin is that they contribute to stopping the spread of epidemics which would affect a lot of those outside of an the area where they are doing these things.
So I guess for me being part of my chosen scientific community as well as family and friends pretty much covers Maslow. The stem cell debacle really embarrassed the molecular biologists (mainly because it was published in a reputable scientific magazine before the fraud was discovered) they know they will all be tagged with it
by a puplic, largely ignorant of how acceptance of research “normally” works. When the media get hold of this stuff (as with anything) they tend to coin phrases to get the attention of readers. These phrases, (usually insinating) are what the average reader remembers of the article. You get that!
Whenever I see reference to ID/creationism as science I see red and will always stand up and fight against it. The savage stuff that is happening all over the world in the name of religion (the need to believe in something) is depressing and scary. I just prefer not to get depressed or scared. A little sad for kids being born and brought up into it maybe as they don’t have the rescources of experience to not be scared and/or depressed by it all when they start to realise what is going on. Then the realisation just gets bigger and bigger.
Fear is bred out of ignorance. (by that I mean lack of knowledge) Kids who get cancer or other nasty diseeases lose most of their fear when you explain to them, in a way they can understand, how your body and the cancer are actually working against each other. Some of them, maybe going through chemotherapy or other nasty treatments, even get quite a buzz out of sitting down the adults and explaining (in their simplified way) how their particular form of disease works. The adults being lectured are usually speechless at this. We are the ones that teach kids fear (some for good reason i.e. “don’t touch that it’s hot”) and introduce them to scary concepts. (scary movies, television hell ect).
Anyway I have said enough and I have work to do.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE
I was just writing out another post to you and after I posted it you already had another one up there. You are on the ball.
As for your last post
………Mammals tend to display more altruistic behaviors than insects/roundworms, and ok here’s a stretch… might be more likely to believe in a suppernatural being…….
Reguarding the worm and fly. I know :) just couldn’t help myself there. I was tempted to go off on a Mus tangent because mice …cheese …spaghetti, but I practised self restraint.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ya evolution is fraud. right. may i just say that scientists just found a full body of human ansestor, that is better than lucy, connecting apes to humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was a ’scientist’ until I saw the light. My former colleagues and I spent many hours fabricating skeletons that would bridge the gap of something that never happened. Upon threat of death, I am unable to tell you much of my horrible, dirty past. Suffice to say that following ‘Lucy’, they have a ‘Linus’ and ‘Charlie Brown’ planned. ‘Snoopy’ seemed to be a bit pretentious.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was a sample of a dead animal shipped to Britain from Australia about 150 years ago. British biologists quickly assertained that it was a fake. This crazy frankenstein beast was apparantly a beaver with it’s feet sewen up and a ducks bill surgically attached. It turns out that the biologists were wrong and this was indeed a true creature. What is more they discovered later that this mammal lays eggs (one of two mammals which does this – known) and has poisoness spurs (unique to all mammals – known). This is a platapus of coarse. Who needs to create fake animals with real ones like this??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because we (now ‘they’) can. What you don’t know is they partake of a great deal of Corona Extra, which gets us (sorry… them) worked up into a creative frenzy. As is well known, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, and a lot of it can be… well, REALLY dangerous. We (again… they) build on these ‘pranks’ and plot and plan until they have a nice system. Scientific seminars, held all over the world carry secret, corruptive messages in the lectures. Again, I know. I was once part of that sad system.
Why, you ask? Why? Because they know the truth, and they are afraid of it. They believe they can build their own fleet of pirate ships that will one day be converted into space-pirate ships. The goal is to go after FSM and try to defeat Him. This will allow them to own the Beer Volcano so they no longer will be forced to drink Corona and Ripple.
The FSM will allow them to take this as far as His whim will allow, before He removes them from His sight… permanently.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can make a fruit flies legs grow where its eyes should be or antennae grow instead of legs. Could be dangerous. Then again could provide us with years and years of fun and laughter. Biological marcanno(?) (Lego in Australia) sets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because….you know…we don’t have solid scientific evidence pointing toward the highly probably theory of evolution or anything. I can tell you this much…if we all just sit on our asses and talk to the ceiling, we’ll never find out where exactly we came from. The answer isn’t going to magically appear in the semen stains under the desk or the week old pizza you left sitting on the table, it’s going to be through rigorous research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It might.
Have you ever seen how fast a Pizza can evolve – Once it has past from the stage of being a food it devolves to a lower lifeform and hibernates for several months before rising up to a level that we can only bow down and pay homage to.
Try this at home kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A few days ago,father of our minister of education,Maciej Giertych,professor of biology officialy denied the theory of evolution by Darwin.He also affirmed that dinosaurs lived not a long time ago-the proof-report of Marco Polo visit in China where he saw the dragon pulling the caridge,and the Loch Ness monster.As well he revealed the mammoths found on Alaska died of suffocationand as an evidence he submited their jutting penises.And as a comment I’d like to add that this is not funny ’cause the vice-minister of education agrees with these revelations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahhhh, you poor buggers… Don’t let them win. Protest with spaghetti might. Fight for your minds. Eat pasta.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What sort of drugs are these people on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@nikkiee:
Cheap, nasty, non-noodly drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Greetings from Poland,
.
This appears to be Maciej Giertych’s website:
.
http://giertych.pl/
.
I’m not too great at Polish. Are you able to spot if there’s a means of contact? He sounds like a man in need of pasta-spam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE,
.
Congratulations on the neologism ’suppernatural’. A better adjective for the FSM I could not imagine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WARNING – THIS IS THE LONGEST POST YET, I THINK.
.
I’d really appreciate feedback from any of the regulars, but you’ll need a good few minutes’ reading time and a whole lot of patience. I am but a simple pirate.
.
Guys – especially Nickiee and ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE,
.
I want to chip in to the ‘religiosity as a survival advantage’ debate started by ALT-CTRL-EVOLVE way back when. But, I’m not a scientist and I’m going to be blundering around committing all kinds of crimes against proper scientific language and thought, I expect. Nickiee, I’m trusting you to correct me – or shoot me down in flames – afterwards. (I need to learn!)
.
So, on with the guess-ery and supposition! Richard Dawkins refers to the idea of the religious inclination as a kind of ‘gap’ in the psyche that is conveniently filled by supernatural beliefs. He suggests that it may be a sort of side-effect of various traits that are evolutionarily selectable. One of them is that it makes sense for kids to be very open to accepting information given by adults, because kids who learn for themselves not to play by the cliff-edge are at a distinct survival disadvantage. This leads to the phenomenon that kids so readily take on their parents’ religion.
.
I like the phrase ‘God-Shaped Hole’ for what Dawkins is on about, because it’s one that someone used to me years ago. And I reckon that, continuing along Dawkins’ lines, there might be lots of evolutionarily plausible reasons for the God-Shaped Hole to appear. FOUR of them follow.
.
NUMBER ONE is the anthropological argument that we’ve had elsewhere. We can suppose that a group of humans who instinctively impute human feelings and intentions behind everything will be at an advantage compared to those who don’t. They’ll understand and bond with other humans, and may even be at a slight advantage in interpreting the behaviour of predators and prey (though you could see pitfalls here, too). We can see today that this instinct remains in the way we humanise our pets, treat inanimate objects like friends and give good money to astrologers. (Obviously, this is all truer for some people than others.) If a genetic difference were to differentiate between ‘expectation of, and great sensitivity to, human characteristics’ and ‘no expectation and no sensitivity of human characteristics’ then the first group should win out.
.
This helps to supply the God-Shaped nature of the Hole. We look for a big explanation and we see a Big Person, a set of human intentions.
.
NUMBER TWO is a sort of social glue, along the lines of what Lote was talking about. I’m inclined to think along the lines of the Prisoner’s Dilemma here, though. We can again see that earlier humans are at a survival advantage if they live and work in teams. It’ll take a few of you to kill that mammoth. It’d be useful if someone could mind the kids while you’re at it, and if someone else could help you drag it back to camp. You could do with friends to help guard against people who might try to take your dead mammoth from you in the night. And, having caught it and dragged it home, you’d appreciate someone who could peel it and cook it.
.
Once you’re within one of these groups, though, you might seem to be at an advantage if you break the rules – cheat a bit so that you do better than your peers. You can see this as an increasingly advantageous strategy as societies grow and become more complex, affording you more opportunities to steal, rape, rob and murder, and get away with it.
.
If this strategy is so obviously advantageous, we might expect it to be commonplace – but a society of thieves, rapists, robbers and murderers is no longer a functional, co-operating society and the whole group advantage risks falling apart. Natural selection should favour individuals that will somehow ‘self police’ and find a way to enforce a kind of behavioural code, holding their society together.
.
Enter religion, again. In the absence of an effective justice system, a species that is inclined to believe that exploiting others will result in harm to itself will have the appropriate motivation to play fair. (You might call this the ‘My Name Is Earl’ imperative.)
.
Of course, our early humans are going to be inclined to want some explanation for this feeling of universal order. Their instinct, following Point One, should be to humanise it. *Someone* will reward them for being nice to people and punish them for not doing so.
.
NUMBER THREE – Fear of death can be pretty paralysing. Firstly, there’s the point that feelings along the line of ‘if I’m just going to die anyway, then sod the guilt, I’m going to have a damn good time when I’m alive’ would pull directly against the moralistic imperative for social cohesion described above. Secondly, an early human with an overwhelming fear of death isn’t going to take the sort of risks that a braver one might – risks like charging that mammoth, spear in hand. Any early human who demonstrates an ability to diminish his or her fear of death (not completely conquer it, which could lead to suicidal risk-taking) is again at an advantage, both in terms of the bold and aggressive behaviour that secures food and wins arguments, and in terms of co-operating unselfishly with a group.
.
NUMBER FOUR – In today’s enormous and complex society, there’s room for people with all kinds of jobs. We can have professional academics, dedicating their lives to specialised fields that most of us will never think of.
.
For our distant ancestors, anyone who was inclined to spend his or her days contemplating the cosmos instead of getting on with practical matters would have been at a clear disadvantage, again. Sure, whilst we might expect the ability to think and reason to be a survival advantage, giving you an intellectual one-up on your competitors, so too would be the ability to say to yourself ‘That train of thought isn’t getting any mammoths hunted’. Early humans who descended into clouds of existential confusion would have been hungry as well as confused.
.
It’s only comparatively lately, perhaps (a few thousand years, say) that society has been at liberty to employ and support dedicated philosophers and scientists. And it’s certainly only very lately that science has reached the point of unravelling all the godism that’s built up over the millennia.
.
Basically, I’m saying that an instinct for cutting corners, choosing a simple answer and shutting out unnecessary complexities may also be evolutionarily selectable. Interestingly, this same instinct, differently applied, feeds both Occam’s Razor (‘always go for the simplest answer’) and the self-blinding behaviour of the die-hard theist (‘this evolution is a bit hard to swallow – God is much simpler!’)
.
SUMMARY – So, I’m saying that there appear to me to be common sense reasons why the evolution of humanity might have favoured the development of such traits as:
.
– an instinct to believe in humanised causes
.
– a tendency to believe in a sort of cosmic moral order, with rewards and punishments
.
– an ability to perceive death in such a way as to render it less threatening and absolute
.
– a habit of shutting the door on complicated-sounding arguments in favour of simpler ones that allow you to get on with whatever you were doing
.
Wrapping those things up together, we have the basis of a God-Shaped Hole, I think. What is god if not a human-like answer for questions that seem too difficult for us to answer, who imposes a moral code upon us, incites us to unite as a group and promises us a better life after death?
.
Just had to get that out there. Really keen to know whether this is all just blindingly obvious already, or clearly wrong in some way.
.
Ta.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Elegant, to the point (despite the length) and a well constructed argument. I just love the irony of considering the evolution of religion, a subject generally opposed to the theory.
.
I have another point however, one that isn’t so nice. How about religion as a tool?
.
It would surely aid any prospective leader if they had some source of moral high ground to call upon (listen to me, not him, he’s a heretic),
.
or some sort of divine retribution to call down on the foe (It doesn’t matter that we lost, because they will burn in hell)
.
a way to intimidate the others in the tribe (listen to me, or you are a heretic AND you will burn in hell)
.
or finally, a way to use fortuitous chance as a reinforcing argument (see, if you follow me, more wild boar will conveniently trap themselves in this gorge).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, The Aussie,
.
Thanks for the response! Thought (still think actually) that the sheer size of that might have made it one of those thread-killing posts…
.
Nice points, you make. They’re highlighting the efficacy of aspects of religion as a tool for an individual taking power within his/her lifetime, right? Can’t argue there! Don’t know whether this relates to meme theory, in any way (since I don’t really know anything about meme theory after the point when Dawkins first raised the idea).
.
I always find it kind of amazing how Christianity of the sort that I used to be a part of (Anglican low church evangelical) has managed to change, change, change with the times to stay convincing. When you see the baroque beast that is the Catholic church struggling to decide whether it’s time to ditch the idea of limbo, you appreciate just how flexible moderate Protestantism has managed to be. Once you accept Jesus, every detail is justifiable.
.
In fact, when I became a signed-up Christian, they taught me a handy little evangelical tool called ‘Two Ways To Live’, which consisted of a grid of six little pictures conveying the core message of their faith, with a New Testament quotation for each one. It ended with the big ‘will you accept Jesus or not?’ question. I wonder if an atheistic (or Pastafarian, of course) equivalent might be worthwhile. Oooh, I’ll think about it…
.
PS – Everyone: If you guys ever feel like another format for fighting creationists, IDists and the never-ending legion of multi-flavoured godists, the Richard Dawkins website is good. http://richarddawkins.net/ Choose the one with the picture of the double helix and click on any of the recent articles. Inflammatory book reviews and discussion threads abound…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@J and Aussie: I think both your posts are spot on. Witch-doctors held a lot of power over the tribes ect.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now they call them priests or “father”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J
“….Catholic church struggling to decide whether it’s time to ditch the idea of limbo….”
I thought that they had indeed decided to do this just recently?
Why do christian religions wonder at the ridicule they recieve over their version of the “truTh” contained in various editions of the “booK” Who was limbo for? The atheists or half good christians?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nikkiee,
.
‘I thought that they had indeed decided to do this just recently?’ – Yup, that’s right! Progressive bunch, aren’t they?
.
That’s one of the things that’s so great about Catholocism. Whilst Protestant faiths try to reduce everything down to the bible and engage in a lot of very subtle interpretative massage to make the logical ends meet, Catholicism barely even tries to disguise the fact that it just makes things up. Praying to saints? Purgatory? Holy relics? Papal indulgences? Limbo? None of this is in the bible – it’s all just nonsense invented to shore up Christianity as it existed hundreds of years ago, to appeal to humanity’s appetite for ritual, and to pad the Pope’s purse.
.
But, better a lie that’s so sun-eclipsingly massive you can’t miss it than a set of sneaky, back door, camouflaged, ninja fibs. Brilliantly, Catholicism does for Christianity pretty much the same as the FSM does for all religion. It shows you exactly the sort of manipulative lying, the exploitation of popular gullibility, that all Christianity relies on. Protestantism is Catholicism reinvented for a more well-informed, more educated audience, but it’s still an edifice with a heart of pure fabrication. And ditto for all the other theisms
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another reason for the existence of religion:
.
Besides the tendency to humanize objects, the fear of the unknown is also a huge motivating factor. When it wasn’t (conclusively) know that the earth was round, all sorts of theories about the ‘flat’ earth were there. Before the earth was shown to self-rotate, all myths about ‘day’ and ‘night’ emerged. While the church (from Aristotle) claimed that the sun orbited the earth, standard model was ’some god put the stellar objects in the sky’. I hope you will agree that almost no-one believes in this tripe nowadays.
.
It is the human fear of anything inexplicable that drives all this wild imagination. Thus, the unsolvable question about ‘life after death’ will always fascinate the minds of those abhorring logic and common sense (what happens to bodies buried for several years? duh)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My i refer you to truth. Richard Milton must have broke his hammer when he tried to shatter evolution. Hey I just had a idea, lets rebrand! Insted of Darwinian evolution the lets use Wallaceian evolution. Ok its the same and was thought up at about the same time but its a different name! I mean that’s when there doing. Rebranding creationism as Intelligent design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ All pastafarians, atheists, humanists, Brights, and free-thinkers,
.
Ahoy there!
.
I’m copying this post onto a few threads because I’d like as many people as possible to notice it. (Bobby, if you should read this, is there any chance of a new thread?)
.
You might have spotted on these pages Richard Dawkins’ high-profile references to the FSM, unmasking himself as at the very least an honorary pastafarian and certainly a friend of pirates the world over. He’s done his bit for the FSM – here’s a chance to return the favour.
.
His many books on evolution and, in particular, his recent book ‘The God Delusion’ have influenced a lot of people here.
.
Anyway, here in Britain, one of our national newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, in conjunction with Morgan Stanley, is running the third annual ‘Great Britons’ awards. People are invited to vote for the British person they think has been the most ‘Great’ (somehow) in each of seven categories.
.
Me salty guts tell me that a hearty lot of pirates’ll want to support their own and put their cutlasses behind Richard Dawkins, by far and away Britain’s noodliest man of 2006, and doubtless also he of the biggest meatballs.
.
I nominated him earlier today, in the ‘Campaigning’ category. You can add your nominations by visiting greatbritons.org. It takes barely a minute and might help one of the FSM’s finest sea-dogs to the gain the legendary status he deserves. You can even put in a 50-word explanation of why he gets your vote, which would probably strengthen the case (if you’ve anything to say). If you’d like to know more about him, try visiting richarddawkins.net.
.
Douglas Adams fans might like to note that Dawkins and Adams were close friends and that Adams credited Dawkins’ books ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ and ‘The Selfish Gene’ as having influenced his reasoning towards atheism. Dawkins wrote a ‘Lament for Douglas’ immediately after Adams’ death, and delivered a eulogy at his funeral.
.
I’ve a second reason for recommending this. The Telegraph ran an article by regular columnist Charles Moor on Saturday that dismissed ‘The God Delusion’ as ‘fashionable’ and gave a very selective, wilfully interpreted representation of its content. It’s a good newspaper but pretty thoroughly conservative – not an obvious place for pastafarianism to thrive. In light of this, I think it doubly worthwhile to demonstrate the strength of support that Richard enjoys among the world’s many pirates to the Telegraph.
.
(Note – I’ve left http:// off the website addresses in this post, as the first couple of times I tried to post it, it got stuck awaiting moderation. Hopefully this’ll help.)
.
Nominations for the awards continue until November 24th. If ye can spare a second of plunderin’ time, set a course for greatbritons.org and add your cannon to a broadside for free thinking and the FSM!
.
May His Noodly Appendage be upon ye all.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yar i be willing to support the great portayer of truth that is Dawkins. May the sauce be with you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I refer you, in turn, to “Shattering the Myth of Richard Milton’s Sanity”, me. (yet to be released)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Shattering the Myth of Richard Milton’s Sanity” Brilliant!!! I can hardly wait!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The people who don’t believe in evolution are those that need it most.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Faith is believing without proof. Believing with proof isn’t believing it is knowing.”
Sorry nikkiee, I couldn’t resist. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First of all, anyone who says that Evolution is not real, please look around you. Scientists are finding offspring of creatures that are different every day that are more fit for survival. Still don’t believe me? Look at a fossil. Yes, a FOSSIL. What, do you think those are just made up by someone who have nothing better to do in their spare time?
Second of all, Evolution isn’t a religion – it’s a theory. And we all know it’s a theory. It’s almost a fact. It’s more believable than your so called “Creation”. If you can’t believe in FSM, than you might as well not believe in God, because FSM is, in spirit, just like your Christianity, or Catholicism or whatever other Intelligent Design thing you believe in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
….because FSM is, in spirit, just like your Christianity, or Catholicism or whatever other Intelligent Design thing you believe in…..
NOT!!
FSM is way better!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are some questions-do beleivers in FSM still eat pasta,or is this sacralicious?-Whitch came first,the meatballs or the noodles?-And did the apes eat the spaghetti (we spell it spagetti)and evolve into humans or did the spaghetti eat the apes and create humans,or maybe spit the apes back out as humans,or just relocate the apes so humans could come out of their caves and get a few bananas too….that seems only fair after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pasta is a gift from the great FSM himself. the meatball came first, but if you are refering to the FSM himslef then it is a pointless question as he is eternal and thus nether the meatball nor the spaghetti come first.
.
For reasons only know to his greatness he only handed down the great gift of pasta in recent years. Perhaps it wasat the point he thought we were ready for his wise teachings or perhaps it simply slipped his mind until then. I don’t pretend to have any great insights into how the mighty one thinks. All I can say is that he has a plan!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Penne: I had pasta for dinner tonight — black pepper fettucini with tomato, olive, marinated pork and artichoke. I had an orgasm half way through. This, I believe, is no coincidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nowtheworldhasmeaning -Thanks for the info, and Marcus,well,umm…thanks for sharing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s nice to know some people are so ,could I say”passionate”about their belifes.I think…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can we still eat pasta or what ?Yes , No , Maybe so,tell me please cause I don’t know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Waiter, I’ll have what Marcus had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shhhhh,or everybody will want some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Faith – belief that is not based on proof
Hmmm see that i just saved you a lot of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if evolution is such a fraud, then why is it backed by so much evidence. also, since when do scientists go down to pray to the ‘home erectus fossil’. is evolution really that controversial. if it is, it’s very sad.
‘oh my god, evolution is going to lead to so much trouble in the world. a theory that tells us that animals change over time is going to cause wars much worse than the one that goes on in the middle east. oh my god’
-my sarcastic impression of a fundy (fundamentalist)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If God created us, than where did God come from? And if you are going to say that Evolution is a fraud… please, for the love of his noodleyness, give us some reasoning behind it. You can’t just say something rediculous and then run away without explaining yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s Richard Dawkin’s review of the book cited at the top of this thread, “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism†by Richard Milton:
.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
why can’t people just learn to accept evolution. it’s so stupid. creation is so stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sean,
I have a good reply for you to your concern here. If in fact, its not about God, then why do Evolutionists such as Richard Lewontin consistently assert: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’
I know that Evolutionists are usually blind to this methodology of asserting Evidence or that they simply write this off as Creationists “quote mining” but there is a necessary element to quoting these Scientists. One, it is a proper appeal to authority that Evolutionists are starting to see that there may be a possible truth behind the God issue. Two, it demonstrates where the main issue of concern is among the top Evolutionists in Science today. Its keeping God out. So if Evolution is a fraud, then Creation Science is not a fraud, and by default, it becomes correct.
I don’t think you truly understand how people come to the conclusion of what God is. I think a good study in Theodicy would lend credibility to this issue. God has been proven to be true, and not only has God been proven to be true, he has also been demonstrated that only irrational fools could disbelieve in God, as it runs contrary to the Psychological make up of mankind in the first place. One can not truly escape reason. In order to escape reason, one must not even respond to this post. In so asserting, they have used reason…but what comes afterwards, I can’t grant will be intellectual. Its quite possible that it will be self refuting (judging from this site….wouldn’t be surprised.) Its interesting how we have people like this saying: “why can’t people just learn to accept evolution. it’s so stupid. creation is so stupid.” Mind telling us why its stupid? Or its just stupid cause its stupid? Yeah, this is nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the argument for a God cannot possibly fall within the relams of logic. to claim that a being which defies logic can be proven through logic is the epitome of counter-intuition..
.
for you to assert there is a God in order to refute materialism is ultimately foolish, because once we abandon logic that we may accept the supernatural, the floodgates for all kinds of absurdities open. if you are willing to believ in god then why not Thor, or Zeus, or Osiris? why not faeries, or vampires, or goblins? you may claim that there is no logical evidence for such things, but you have already committed yourself to the possibility that certain beings (god) can exist outside the realms of logic.
.
face it; creationism has nothing but faith to back it up, and in the face of hard science it truly sucks. you have no evidence, you have no logic which cannot be reufted; you merely have an ancient book of lies and threats, which you, “doctor” seem to take far too seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, good Doctor, the folks here are going to have so much fun with this! Thank you, thank you, thank you! You might want to quote a few scientists that actually agree with you, too, just to make it more fun. I love your illogical conclusions! I am just salivating waiting for the replies. Again, thank you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the argument for a God cannot possibly fall within the relams of logic. to claim that a being which defies logic can be proven through logic is the epitome of counter-intuition..
.
for you to assert there is a God in order to refute materialism is ultimately foolish, because once we abandon logic that we may accept the supernatural, the floodgates for all kinds of absurdities open. if you are willing to believ in god then why not Thor, or Zeus, or Osiris? why not faeries, or vampires, or goblins? you may claim that there is no logical evidence for such things, but you have already committed yourself to the possibility that certain beings (god) can exist outside the realms of logic.
.
face it; creationism has nothing but faith to back it up, and in the face of hard science it truly sucks. you have no evidence, you have no logic which cannot be reufted; you merely have an ancient book of lies and threats, which you, “doctor†seem to take far too seriously.
This isn’t too hard. Your very ability to think refutes Materialism. Not to mention, the fact that the wind exists and can not be denied to exist refutes Materialism. Also, we have that bit of problem that Evolution has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and is a Philosophically defunct position to take a stand on. No new information from beneficial mutations has taken place, only a loss of information.
Now that Materialism is out of the way (like that was a tough one), we have a problem with you stating that God exists outside of the realm of logic. Au contraire, the teleological argument for God asserts the very opposite claim: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
Thus, being that the mind itself is prior to nature, and precedes nature in like accord, it can be asserted that our thoughts in fact prove that there is a God, hence God is a being that can be thought of as the highest form of being that exists. God’s logic is our logic. Without logic, we could not find God. Without God, there would be no logic. Henceforth, the answer to the God question is logic itself. The laws of logic exist, they define the meaning for rationality in itself, rationality can not be escaped, the Anthropic Principle states that the cause must be greater than the effect. Since reason is beyond the capacity of mankind to escape, mankind is subject to reason and logic, and henceforth, reason precedes mankind (and as such, essence precedes existence). This cause must come from another cause. That cause is God.
Another thing, the unmoved mover argument is enough to claim that there is a God. I can draw you further into this if you want, heading into the area of Theodicy where we can actually prove that the Christian God is the only God that exists, and anything else must be the equivalent to him through the use of the law of logic.
Dr. Michael Martin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fact, not many know this, but Christianity is the only thing out there that tells us to check out all sides. “Critically analyze everything, hold onto the good.” It takes someone to deny rational thought in order to deny Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there is no evidence for evolution? okay, you have pretty much discredited anything else you can possibly say. speciation has been observed in lizards, fish and insects, to name but a few. new strains of bacteria crop up all the time. do these things happen because god makes them? it’s called Mutation, and contrary to what certain christians will tell you, it is not always detrimental.
if evolution does not exist, would you care to explain the origins of MRSA? how about SARS? or any of the modern bacterial strains which are resistant to antibiotics?
.
the existence of wind does not refute the materialist worldview. wind can be measured and observed through use of the correct, imparsial instruments. God and the supernatural cannot.
.
and in what possible way is evolution a defunct philosophical position? i fail to see how you could arrive at this conclusion. just because we are nothing more than bright, emotionally developed animals does not mean we do not have basic social obligations towards one another – you know, the social obligations which people call ‘morality’.
.
please, stop being such an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J and Wench Nikkiee are going to have carpal tunnel after this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, beneficial mutations occur. The issue there is that no new information has been observed to occur through the genetics. We’d expect to see a lot by now if Evolution were true.
And Speciation, Variation and Natural Selection are perfectly legitimate concepts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“new” information does not occur, because all DNA uses the same chemical componants – Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine and various saccharides. new species occur because new combinations of existing genetic information arise. that is why we still share 66% of our DNA with that of bacteria.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution has no merit because of the Origin Science involved behind it. Nonbeing can not create Being. Metaphysically, this is a defunct position, and should be discarded as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As far as evidence for a Young Earth model, try: Russell Humphrey’s White Hole Model and Salty Seas for evidence. This site really sucks concerning messaging.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’d be nice to know where we have observed those new species too. As far as we can see, all genetic information involves a loss in information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
genetic mutation requires a RECOMBINATION of existing information, not necessarily a loss of it. sometimes, a gain does occur (wild banana plants a bi-chromosomal; farmed ones have been grown from cuttings so long that they are trichromosomal). i’ll dig up some more specific examples when i am not so tired.
.
evidence against the young earth model starts with radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating , the fossil record, geological strata and a bunch of otehr stuff.
.
evolution does not explain the origin of life, merely its diversity. it is no way a defunct position. life could possibly have been created by god. it could equally have arisen spontaneaously in primordial oceans (you only need that first strand of DNA) or have come to earth clinging to a meteor in the form of archaeobacteria.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Darwin stole the ideas from Edward Blythe a YECS. Andrew Bradbury has an excellent book that can be found on this subject online. Darwin bears the burden of proof. Hence, a huge barrier for Evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No combination has successfully denoted any new change or new gain of genetic information in the very least.
If you agree with this, then of course, Evolution has further problems against Creation Science than before. Though, I’d venture to say the most prominent of Scientists (and I have seen quite a few) would disagree with you on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But assuming the truth of Darwinism as ‘evidence’ for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors.
And therein lies your problem. Your position is still unassertable and ultimately false.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
..I don’t think you truly understand how people come to the conclusion of what God is. I think a good study in Theodicy would lend credibility to this issue. God has been proven to be true, and not only has God been proven to be true, he has also been demonstrated that only irrational fools could disbelieve in God….
AT LAST!! AT LAST!! a worthy opponent (sort of). If you believe that god put all manner of living creatures on this earth, that he also apparently created, then we have something to debate here. The human brain is a wonderful thing. In it’s billions of connections and awsome complexity, such things arise such as emotion, thought, imagination etc. A symphony of chemical and electrical interaction that give rise to what makes us, us. The capacity to love, hate, enjoy a plate of spaghetti all arise from this living organ and it’s biological process(es). Can you deny this? Can you say, with a straight face, that our brains do NOT do this? Faith also, my friend, is a result of chemical, biological, electical processes in our brains. All of what we are, or can ever be is determined by the happenings in our brains (which is damn near infinite I reckon). Why should I believe that some spirit in the sky created me? I suppose my brain could grasp that concept. I suppose it could be possible, but why? Why can’t I follow the clues? Why can’t I seek evidence? You have a book. A nifty little book that says “this is the truth!” and when I ask why, you say “because god made it this way, and god says this, and god says that…” Faith. Have Faith. I do have faith. It is an emotion; governed by the chemical and electrical activity in my brain organ. It works for you too, just that your faith is in your god, while mine is in science, and man, and mathematics. How dare you say that god is proven to be true? Do you suggest that your capacity for faith is different, or better that mine? You sir, are limited by your faith. I don’t expect you to accept that, just stop suggesting that your faith is the only true faith. Christianity is a losing bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
evidence against the young earth model starts with radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating , the fossil record, geological strata and a bunch of otehr stuff. (Not really, all of the transitional fossils we have are solely potential. We really have no solid evidence for the transitional fossil record. This is old hat.
Radiocarbon dating really is not at all accurate. Most of the support for this is abandoned based off of the fact that: The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. Regarding Potassium Argon dating: Potassium-argon ‘dates’
Inset: Andesite of the June 30, 1954 flow, Mt Ngauruhoe, seen at 60 times magnification under a geological microscope. Different minerals have different colours. All are embedded in a fine-grained matrix.
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone. All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces.
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
Map of the northwestern slopes of Mt Ngauruhoe showing the lava flows of 1949 and 1954, and the 1975 avalanche deposits.
The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in The ‘ages’ range from
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for one, we do not lack the DNA code of all ancestor species. many primitive species still exist in the world today.
.
and what the hell do you mean when you say that no recombination has resulted in a new genetic code? did you miss my post on a previous thread about antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
.
of course evolution bares the burden of proof – it’s a scientific THEORY! everything in science bares this burden. gravity, electricity and physical/temporal relativity all bare the burden of proof. evolution has literally masses of evidence, from DNA sequencing to the fossil record, yet you seem intent on closing your eyes, jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring it as well as you possibly can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
0.27 or 0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth. Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of ‘normal’ 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics8and ancient crustal rocks.
This makes it highly unreliable for the purposes that you mention.
.
evolution does not explain the origin of life, merely its diversity. it is no way a defunct position. life could possibly have been created by god. it could equally have arisen spontaneaously in primordial oceans (you only need that first strand of DNA) or have come to earth clinging to a meteor in the form of archaeobacteria. (then what are we arguing for? And how do you explain life being created without a God? That conclusion as a possibility does not follow).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I will tell you like C.S. Lewis did about our thoughts coming from Chemicals.
If that is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts, since they are unreliablly solely chemical processes derived from the mind. And if that be true, then we have no trusting that they are unreliable chemical processes in the first place.
Karl Marx tried and failed years ago with that one. Nice try though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence. – prove this statement.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep. Better luck next time :).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i can’t leave without replying to your comment on transitional fossils. yes, they are potential. no, they cannot be 100% verified because we do not have living samples here. but to say that none of the transitional forms discovered bare any relevance here is stupid. theory of evolution predicts transitional forms and guess what, we find transitional forms!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for one, we do not lack the DNA code of all ancestor species. many primitive species still exist in the world today – argument by mere assertion. These species would be?
.
and what the hell do you mean when you say that no recombination has resulted in a new genetic code? did you miss my post on a previous thread about antibiotic-resistant bacteria? This feedback, from Mikko Ilmari Nummelin of Finland, who gave permission for his full name to be used, criticises the responses to the PBS series on ostensibly scientific grounds. He accuses CMI of bias, falsehood, and misinformation, but fails to back up his points.
The only issue he does attempt to back up is a claim of information increase that caused increased resistance to antibiotics. But this once again fails to understand the key relationship between information and specified complexity. Once again, supposed evidence