Spaghetti and pasta didn't exist till the 500-900AD - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Spaghetti and pasta didn’t exist till the 500-900AD

Published by Bobby Henderson November 15th, 2006 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism).

Problem, Spaghetti and pasta didn’t exist till the 500 - 900 AD. Google it knucklehead. Funny, yet it still does not address the problem of irreducible complexity. Too bad :( He missed the whole point.

-LeapofFaith

228 Responses to “Spaghetti and pasta didn’t exist till the 500-900AD”

Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 … 12 » Show All

121 - November 20th, 2006 at 7:31 pm - Jingles Says:

Hey guys, just like to let you all know, if you don’t already, J has got The Letter off.
.
Should be interesting to see the response we get.
122 - November 20th, 2006 at 8:26 pm - C Says:

Whoas. You are STUPID, ren’t you? Of cours, the the Flying Spaghetti Monster WENT BACK IN TIME!

Now, that just breaks your whole theory, doesn’t it?
123 - November 20th, 2006 at 11:17 pm - Peg Leg Dave Says:

As far as I am aware “irreducible complexity” poses a greater problem for ID than evolutionary theory. It is the sad little crutch used to prop up ID arguments that is constantly being kicked over. First it was the hand, then the eye and recently the bacterial flagellum. In all cases the argument for irreducible complexity has been debunked. In fact the “irreducible complexity” of the bacterial flagellum was disproved 8 years ago and it is still being dragged out as the flagship argument for ID.
124 - November 20th, 2006 at 11:58 pm - Saxxon Says:

Well good thing we have ourselves a 1530 year old man on the forum to clear things up for us. Time is like clam sauce for the FSM artard.
125 - November 21st, 2006 at 5:41 am - Nick Davies Says:

First some self-evident truths:

(1) The theory of evolution accounts for the diversity of life, not its origin. As evidence is gathered to support the theory it will become a ‘law’. If the evidence does not support the theory, then another theory will be developed which includes the new evidence. This is the scientific method. However, there are rules about evidence - it must be incontrovertible and not just an argument or opinion.

(2) Matters of faith or dogma cannot be countered with any argument that draws on rationality ie requiring logic, consistency or the production of evidence. The whole point of faith is that one believes in the assertion (or postulate) implicitly and no supporting evidence is required. The whole point of rational argument is that a chain of resoning is presente with supporting evidence provided to prove each step in the reasoning.

(3) Intelligent Design is not a theory and has no chain of reasoning. Evidence is provided, but most evidence can be explained by other theories such as the theory of evolution. Where the theory of evolution is found to be lacking, such as in accounting for the evolution of the bombardier beetle, then the scientific method allows for more evidence to be found to support the theory, or the theory to be adapted or the theory to be discarded and replaced with something better. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, insists first the theory is inviolate and then selectively presents evidence to support it. Any other interpretation of the facts is decried because it does not support the theory. This is the opposite of science and does not conform to the scientific method and so cannot be described as a scientific theory.

(4) The account of the flying spaghetti monster and the related creation myth is no less valid then any other creation myth and deserves the respect of the theological community. Correspondingly, any mythology, concerning the creation or otherwise, is not science but is storytelling and must be respected as any other work of a creative mind.

Given these facts, one is forced to certain conclusions and questions to carry forward to the next step in the debate.

(1) Intelligent Design and Pastafarianism are not scientific theories and have no place in a classroom dedicated to rationality, let alone science.

(2) The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and the scientific method insists it be challenged, but on a scientific basis.

(3) The flying spaghetti monster myth is no less credible and possibly more entertaining than any other but, like any other myth (concerning the creation or otherwise), should be judged on its entertainment value alone. Veracity is simply not an issue.
126 - November 21st, 2006 at 6:01 am - Wench Nikkiee Says:

@Peg Leg Dave
“In fact the â€œirreducible complexityâ€ of the bacterial flagellum was disproved 8 years ago and it is still being dragged out as the flagship argument for ID.”
.
Isn’t it wonderful when ID keeps us laughing as it just keeps digging its own grave.
127 - November 21st, 2006 at 6:14 am - Homo narrans Says:

“Isnâ€™t it wonderful when ID keeps us laughing as it just keeps digging its own grave.”
.
No, ID’s grave was dug by science long ago. ID is currently a zombie which hasn’t figured out it’s supposed to be dead.
128 - November 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm - jesus christ Says:

i believe in a recent issue of National Geographic, they had a whole article about evolution. in it, they showed how the evolution of the eye works.
.
there you have all you ID fucks. we can show you how the eye evolved. the next step is to make sure people learn to accept it. i bet they probably won’t because they don’t want to seem foolish.
.
behe, in his own world, views his idea as evidence of design. however, with all pseudoscientific theories, it is proved to be retarded. just because he is a biochemist doesn’t mean he can prove ID. ID is a joke.
.
the ID proponents are good at making themselves look like assholes, yet they fail to prove their point.
129 - November 21st, 2006 at 12:40 pm - Homo narrans Says:

didn’t Behe go so far as to admit that none of the organic structures he originally touted as “irreducably complex” were actually beyond the potential of Darwinian evolution to develop?
130 - November 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm - Dr. Michael Martin Says:

When writing dates, the â€œADâ€ comes before the year, not after, as youâ€™ve written. (AD 900, for example, is correct.) Therefore, everything youâ€™ve written is wrong. Q.E.D.

Postmodernism at its worst I see……You guys need to lay off of the Richard Rorty crackpipe.
131 - November 21st, 2006 at 2:52 pm - bastardblaster Says:

it’s funny that he should say that. Spaghetti, pirates, and our Mighty Spaghedeity, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been around for far longer than mormonism, yet the mormons get their own state! We need our own state of Pastopia.

RAmen
132 - November 21st, 2006 at 7:14 pm - OSG Says:

Oh, ye of little faith. You believe in a god that is as tangible as a vacuum in space, yet are closeminded towards others. Perhaps one day we will all see the light.

RAmen.
133 - November 22nd, 2006 at 6:52 am - Pastafarian Says:

If an infinite number of cans of Alphagetti were spilled on on infinitely large plate they would spell out the bible, the koran and all other sacred texts. As well as the recipe and ingredients for pop-tarts. That’s got to prove something.
134 - November 22nd, 2006 at 6:54 am - Pastafarian Says:

Oh… and spaghetti-o’s are a blasphemy!! Ignore their tempting uniformity!
135 - November 22nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm - Penne Says:

-vacuum in space? Oh Please, the stuff these hater-monkeys come up with is akin to that new vacuum that never losses sucktion-It just keeps sucking,and sucking,and sucking,and sucking,and sucking…………………………………………………….
136 - November 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm - daqq Says:

Well, spaghetti actually existed from the beggining. Man kind only discovered it in about 500AD.
137 - November 22nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm - true follower Says:

Soon the Truth will be revealed to the whole Mankind. All hail the Spaghetti Monster!

May the blessings of our true Master fall upon you!
138 - November 22nd, 2006 at 11:45 pm - Homestar Says:

Hmm. I suggest you go to the about page, and read the fourth paragraph of the letter to the Kansas School Board. Maybe that ought to open things up for a close minded *ahem* “knucklehead” like you.
139 - November 22nd, 2006 at 11:56 pm - Peeden Says:

All bow down to his noodly appendages, and his power

RAmen
140 - November 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 am - Me Says:

pasta was made in the likeness of the FSM not the other way round, please take back your hurtful comment.

Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 … 12 » Show All

Purchase the Gospel

An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American