I almost got shot. kinda.
A few days ago, as I was leaving my apartment, a car sped across the parking lot to intercept me. I had just about reached my car when I noticed the driver stopping directly behind my car, blocking me. The two passengers jumped out of the car and came straight at me.
I get a lot of hate-mail and I’ve had more than a few death threats. I keep my address a secret, but I’ve had people track me down in the past. So, when I saw a car speed up and two people jump out, it freaked me out.
One of them asked me if I valued the mind and body benefits of exercise. I said yes and that I needed to get going. They assured me that they’d move the car, but perhaps I wanted to take some reading material with me to look over when I had more time.
So I took their pamphlet. My only excuse is that I thought I was going to get stabbed or something, and I just wanted to get out of there. It wasn’t until later that I looked at the pamphlet. It slowly went from exercise to Jesus. It turned out to be disguised Jehovah’s Witness propaganda, the Watchtower. I figured that they tricked me fair and square, so I felt obligated to read it.
… 
What I learned by this experience
The pamphlet, itself, was kind of Jesusy. But it gave me some fantastic ideas for expanding the Pastafarian congregation. Clearly, the way to get more members is to trick them; make them think they’re signing up for one thing and then – bam – all the sudden you hit them with the gospel-speak, and you’ve got them.
So, I’ve decided that we’re going to do a similar campaign to trick people into joining FSM, specifically, members of other religions, especially the religions who propagandize. I figure that we’ve already got the open-minded people, now we need the gullible ones.
Internet advertising - like magic, but nerdier
You can target advertisements to specific categories of websites. We’re going to be targeting competing religious websites. Any religion who hands out pamphlets is fair game. Lots of religious websites sell ad-space through 3rd parties, and we’ll be able to place OUR ads on their pages, and steal their members.
It’ll work like this: their members will go to the church websites as usual, and they’ll see a small ad suggesting that there is more to their religion. Some of them will click the ad and be brought to a specific catch page, where they’ll hear fantastic arguments on why they should convert.
I need your help with any of the following:
1) Specific strategies for each religion. For example, for Jehovah’s Witnesses, we could push that we, also, reject Orthodox Christianity. And the strategies don’t need to be that on-topic. The Jehovah’s Witnesses got me with an exercise pamphlet, we could just as easily have a pirate angle or something. We’ll have different strategies for the other religions - Mormons, Young Earth Christians, Scientologists, etc. Let’s brainstorm. Either post in the comments or send me an email at bobby.henderson@gmail.com
2) Nich text ads. We need short, catchy text ads that will appeal to each of the target religions. The content of these ads will be more clear once we’ve established our strategies for each religion.
3) Small Image Ads. People with art skills, get creative. Same deal with the text ads, we’re going to know more once we know what our angle is. We’ll need ads in the following dimensions:
200×200
250×250
468×60
336×280
4)Individual Catch Pages. Once they click the ad, they’ll be brought to a page on the FSM site which will expand on the idea presented in the ad and slowly make the argument that they should convert to Pastafarianism. I need help with this.
5) Money. I’ve put aside a few thousand for this. Ads cost between $0.25 and upwards of $5 per thousand views. I’m hoping for a budget of at least $5k. If you want to help, you can either donate, or buy some FSM merchandise.
So, that’s my idea. What do you think?
we were discussing this, coincidently, in our chat. In this case it was mostly to harass scientologist, using the gideons method. Hand out books infront of the scientology centers.
Better yet, dress up fully clad in pirate clothes and have a sliding door van. Drive up next to joggers and jump out with swords drawn and force them to convert.
i am familiar with jehovahs witnesses. There literature always ask you pointed questions on the cover. “Are you ready for the end?” “Is there life after death?” and so on. Questions that compel people to open and read. If you want to emmulate them, you have to have something along the lines of “Are you ready for spaghetti?” “What sauce is right for you?” “Is there more to pasta than just carbs?”
Buck Hanson Star Destroyer
May 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Better yet, dress up fully clad in pirate clothes and have a sliding door van. Drive up next to joggers and jump out with swords drawn and force them to convert.
*
Now that I like!
Rodney May 20th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
“If you want to emmulate them, you have to have something along the lines of “Are you ready for spaghetti?†“What sauce is right for you?†“Is there more to pasta than just carbs?—
.
Link to a page of Pastafarian recipes, each recipe accompanied by a suggestion for a specific Pastafarian grace to be uttered before consumption.
Greetings starchy brethren. Although I enjoy our conversations re: conversions, we will not truly be a ‘player’ in the world religion fields until we do two things.
First, make sure FSM is mentioned in any texts on the world’s great religions, particularly text books. This can be done using a simple laser-printed page and some tape.
Second, we need to start a long and useless war. The best way to pick an opponent is to look for someone who is not only a lot like you, but also identifiably different. Perhaps the Vegetarians?
All love and respect, al fresco and al dente.
St. Semolina the Bold
Also, we need to pick a promised land. I’m not really in favor of a crappy desert full of angry neighbors. Any votes for Maui?
i thought mormons were a totally different religion than jehovahs witnesses. was i wrong? in re to aloutte’s story.
used to live near scientology centre, they always had the newbies on the street asking questions, it almost became a sport for me and my friend to go answer them.. he ahd the best answer to “is there anything about yourself you’d like to change?” at which point he’d reply “yes, i’d like toenails on my big toes” and then proceed to show them in the street talking his shoes and socks off… hilarious - he made one puke!
@SaucyWench May 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“I’ve got to go read more of my book on evolution. I’m at the part where it’s presenting the common ancestor we share with cichlid fish.”
.
Hi Saucy :))
You might enjoy this if you haven’t already seen it.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,857,Study-shows-humans-and-plants-share-common-regulatory-pathway,PhysOrg
If you want a great publication to parody, two words: Chick Publications
Careful. If you end up bringing in the real sheep, you could end up with FSMism going the way of Scientology. That is, gullible little twits hanging on your every word, practically becoming your mindless zombie slaves, believing the most ridiculous fictions and donating huge amounts of money.
. .. …
Actually, that sounds like a pretty good deal. Especially if, at the end of it all, you break their precious hearts with The Truth.
Good luck! Here’s to hoping it all works!
Evolution
Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Is evolution really scientific?
The “scientific method†is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.â€â€”The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.â€â€”The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.â€â€”June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.†(Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.â€â€”By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.
“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.â€â€”C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.â€â€”October 1980, p. 88.
What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.†(The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species†came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?
Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.†(New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.â€â€”(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.
What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.â€â€”January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.â€â€”(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.â€â€”Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.â€â€”Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.â€â€”(New York, 1980), p. 29.
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.†However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.†(February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.â€â€”(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
What about those “ape-men†depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.â€â€”The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.â€â€”Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.â€â€”Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.â€â€”The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.
But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,†meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day†to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
For further details, see page 88.
If Someone Says—
‘I believe in evolution’
You might reply: ‘Do you believe that God had any hand in matters, or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance? (Then proceed on the basis of what the person says.)’
Or you could say: ‘It wouldn’t be realistic to reject something that has been fully proved to be a scientific fact, would it? . . . I have here some comments of scientists that are very interesting regarding this point. (Use material on pages 121, 122, under the subheading “Is evolution really scientific?†or on pages 122, 123, under “Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? . . . â€)’
Another possibility: ‘When there is solid evidence proving something, that is what we should all believe, isn’t it? . . . I recall in my school textbooks that pictures of fossils were provided to support evolution. But since then I have read some very interesting comments by scientists concerning the fossil record. I have some of them here. (Use material on pages 123, 124, under the subheading “What view does the fossil record support?â€)’
An additional suggestion: ‘Am I right in concluding that you are a person who likes to face life the way it really is? . . . I do too.’ Then perhaps add: ‘If I walk in the countryside and find that some wood and stones have been shaped into a house, it should be obvious to me that someone was there before me and built it; right? . . . But, now, would it be logical for me to conclude that flowers growing alongside the house resulted just from chance? If I feel that way I need to look closely and notice the intricate design, because I know that it is a basic truth that where there is design there must be a designer. This is what the Bible tells us at Hebrews 3:4.’
Or you might answer (an older person): ‘One of the basic ideas in evolution is that it accounts for man’s progress, his development to what he is today, isn’t that right?’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘You are an individual who has lived quite some time. Do you remember how things were when you were a child? Was there as much crime as there is now? . . . Did you always have to keep the door locked? . . . Would you say that people back then showed greater concern for their neighbors, and for older folks, than they do today? . . . So, while there has been great progress in technical fields, humans themselves seem to be losing some of the qualities that count most. Why is this?’ (2) ‘I find that these realities of life that we have both observed agree with what is written here in the Bible at Romans 5:12. . . . So, really there has been a downhill trend.’ (3) ‘But the Bible shows how that will change. (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 21:3, 4)’
‘I believe that God created man by means of evolution’
You might reply: ‘I’ve talked with others who share your view. Am I right in concluding that you are a person who has strong faith in God? . . . So your faith really holds first place in your life; with it as a guide, you endeavor to evaluate other things, is that right? . . . That’s the way I view matters too.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘I know that if what I believe is really truth, it is not going to conflict with proved scientific facts. At the same time I know that it would be foolish for me to ignore what God’s Word says, because God knows much more about his works than any of us do. I’m impressed with what the Bible, God’s inspired Word, says here at Genesis 1:21 (emphasize “according to their kindsâ€).’ (2) ‘Then in Genesis 2:7 we learn that God formed man, not from earlier animals, but from the dust.’ (3) ‘And in verses 21, 22 we find that Eve was formed, not from an animal, but with one of Adam’s ribs as starting material.’
Or you could say: ‘(After establishing a common ground, as above . . . ) Some say that the Bible’s reference to Adam was just an allegory. But if that is true, to what conclusion does it lead?’ (1) ‘Well, notice what is stated here at Romans 5:19: “Just as through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one person [Jesus Christ] many will be constituted righteous.†Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.†But if there really was no “one man†named Adam, then such a man never sinned. If he did not sin and pass an inheritance of sin on to his offspring, then there was no need for Christ to give his life on behalf of mankind. If Christ really did not give his life on our behalf, then there is no prospect for life beyond our present few years. That would mean that there actually is nothing left to Christianity.’ (2) ‘Yet, embodied in Christianity are the highest moral principles that can be found anywhere. Is it possible that the finest teachings as to truth and honesty could originate with something that is basically false?’ (See also pages 27-29, under the main heading “Adam and Eve.â€)
‘But highly educated people believe it’
You might reply: ‘True, yet I have come to realize that even those who say they believe it may strongly disagree with others who believe in evolution. (Cite examples from material on pages 122, 123.) So, we must personally examine the evidence to see which we should believe—evolution or creation.’
Or you could say: ‘That’s true. And yet I have come to realize that there are other highly educated people who do not believe it.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Why the difference? They are all acquainted with the same evidence. Might motive enter the picture? Possibly.’ (2) ‘How can you decide which ones to believe? Well, viewing the group as a whole (and not criticizing individuals), which group do you believe would be the more honest—those who believe that man was created by God and so feel accountable to him, or those who say they are a product of chance and so are accountable only to themselves?’ (3) ‘So, then, we personally need to examine the evidence to see whether creation or evolution provides the most satisfying answers to life.’
Evolution
Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Is evolution really scientific?
The “scientific method†is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.â€â€”The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.â€â€”The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.â€â€”June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.†(Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.â€â€”By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.
“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.â€â€”C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.â€â€”October 1980, p. 88.
What view does the fossil record support?
Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.†(The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species†came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?
Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.†(New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.â€â€”(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.
What does the fossil record actually show?
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.â€â€”January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.â€â€”(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.â€â€”Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.â€â€”Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.â€â€”(New York, 1980), p. 29.
Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?
Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.†However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.†(February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.
The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.â€â€”(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.
What about those “ape-men†depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.â€â€”The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.
“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.â€â€”Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.â€â€”Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.â€â€”The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.
But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,†meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day†to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?
The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.†However, the Hebrew word translated “day†has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day†could have been thousands of years in length.
But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,†meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day†to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?
The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.†However, the Hebrew word translated “day†has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day†could have been thousands of years in length.
Pete - I’m sure someone will read that cut ‘n’ paste extravaganza.
Sadly it won’t be me :)
Forged “Evidenceâ€
Some Fossil “evidence†that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.†The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link†has ever been found.
pete
i read about half of it before i started hallucinating.
Could you maybe sum it up
Sorry thesorgo. To sum it up Evolution is not scientific.
“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.â€â€”The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.
Ahhhh
I got that much out of what I read but I wanted to make sure there wasn’t a plot twist at the end
But is it Evolution that is dogmatic or just the science’ version of creation
Ah, we have a a new fundie! Pete has all the hallmarks of being well-versed in creationist tactics. I didn’t read all that rubbish (my attention span may be longer than average for Pastafarians, but I have my limits too), but a quick scan and reading the first part for real already showed the following examples:
- a level of verbal diarhea in his first post that is worse than anything I’ve ever produced.
- quoting mostly from newspapers, books, etc, little from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Among the brilliant sources are Discover Magazine and The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History. Come on, even creationist can do better than that.
- pointing out an example of where science erred (or was duped by a fraud) and holding it up as being representative of all of science.
- Quoting astronomers, physicists etc and then talking up their reputation rather than focussing on the relevant discoveries they made (or in most cases didn’t make) in the field of biology.
- Being oblivious that evolution is going on as we speak, see e. g. anti-biotics becoming less effective because the little buggers have grown resistent to it.
- most laughable: claiming there are no intermediate fossils. Since Pete brought up the example of a fraud bird fossil, let me give him some literature. Take for instance JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY B, year 2003, issue 298b, pages 42-56, first author CHENG-MING CHUONG. The website of that journal is at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/102521318?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The article contains amongs others the following text near the beginning: “We first review a series of fossil discoveries representing intermediate forms of feathers or feather-like appendages from dinosaurs and Mesozoic birds from the Jehol Biota of China.” In that paper are various references to other work in this field, like that of Sawyer and Knapp. That is publshed in the same journal, so you can download and read that paper too:
Sawyer RH, Knapp LW. 2003. Avian skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 298B:57–72. In the first paper there are 14 references to other papers in the Journal of experimental zoology alone. You can download all of them, and read them. The whole issue 298b was dedicated especially to intermediate fossils. And it’s all freely availbale for anyone to download and read.
.
The examples above are what someone who isn’t a biologist can come up with after a very short search. Someone in the field would be able to give you TONS of it. Not that you would read any of it of course. ‘Ghaah! Reality if enforcing itself, noooo! Must stick head deeper in sand’. If you had spent half the effort you put into producing creationist nonsense into trying to learn something, you would have been much less ignorant by now.