Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.
Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.
I look at you blind believers in “science” as members of a political party. If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned. You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” Chaotic haphazard happenstance. Yep, you guys have it all figured out.
Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macroevolution) in your eyes.
I know, since I don’t agree with you guys’ philosophy I have a “poor understanding” of all things science, I’m ignorant of the plethora of evidence, blah blah blah. I’ve heard it. Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.
Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.
-A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician
[this message was left as a comment on another thread]
| 
@Apologist001 : You said: “Just because we can detect a noticeable change in something does not mean that the change produced a superior whatever. It is just different from what it was before. And different does not always mean better.” You are correct, but are you suggesting that all changes (i.e. evolution) that we detect are either neutral or bad for the survival of the organism that changed? What do you think the odds of that would be? When you make a mistake, do you not react to the feedback and change your behavior? Well, for you perhaps the answer is no, but nature works this way. The argument you’re trying to make is incredibly weak, by the way. Many glaring examples were already presented to you regarding beneficial mutations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re all doing a really great job with your replies.
.
I’m trying to sit back here and enjoy reading them all
.
However solid walls of text are much harder to focus on and read.
.
Please ….please
.
Paragraph breaks :)
.
Thank you
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution?”
Dubai swamp lions are twice the size of normal lions, and can take down wilderbeasts. They are a new species as of last year. Some mutant gene caused them to grow huge, which allowed their survival in the new environment they were in(same as saying that they were the only lions to not die off), thus they now have a line seperate from that of mainland lions.
Is that proof enough?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My! My! My! Such fun!
.
So many “straw-men”, out of such a small investment of intelligence – or, perhaps, just basic literacy – with so much emotional baggage appended.
I’m a bit surprised that there are so many posters taking this silly, self-claimant to being a pill-peddler seriously. His own total mis-representation of what he calls, “Darwinian macro-evolution” should have given the spoof away to begin with.
.
(Of course, he could have crawled up out of the basement of one or another of the hole-in-the-wall “Naturopathic/Homeopathic/Healthopathic/Back-Cracker Colleges” that dot the back streets and alleys of some of the towns in the swampy hinterlands of the area below the Mason-Dixon Line. They do call themselves, “Physicians”, too; mostly in those benighted areas that have no real Basic Science examinations to pass for license to practice.)
.
But a genuine M.D., or D.O., who would display that much fatuous ignorance of Darwinism? Or of “science” as a whole, for that matter? And/or with that much contempt for “pathetic religions” – ANY “religion” – in this day and age?
.
But, as with “Noodly Nation”, I certainly do enjoy reading your responses – and also would prefer some paragraph breaks, as well.
.
On the other hand, while it is true that Physicians always have the luxury of burying their mistakes – and blaming it all on “god” anyway – I do have to observe that this “Physician” certainly has managed one of the best “leg-pulls” I’ve seen in a long while.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The concept of something scientific without explanation has occurred time and time again. For quite some time there was no evidence of black holes, only the theory that they existed. Now the scientific community has found very compelling evidence and given us many wonderful insights in to their formation and function. Currently there is much speculation on the total mass of the universe and where all the matter that should exist actually is. They’re working on that one too, and not just dismissing the whole thing as something beyond comprehension. The scientific methods first step in fact is to ask questions that have the answer of unknown. It then theorizes and experiments until there is an answer. Sometimes there are conflicting answers or multiple answers that all seem to make sense, but it is very had to prove scientific theory. What is generally done is evidence is compiled over time proving some theories and disproving others, yet still a theory is only a theory no matter how compelling the argument, such as gravity is only a theory as many of my fellow Pastafarians know well. The only problem with most answers is that they raise even more questions, and so the cycle continues.
The concept of believing archaic lines of thought and ancient writings as the only truth is just plain childish; many children hold to belief and comforting possessions out of fear and uncertainty. When a child grows, they loose belief that rabbits lay eggs and teddy bears protect them from monsters in the closet. Why is this? Could it be that rational thinking has replaced the unknown? Have the theories of an adolescent mind been altered by compelling evidence to the contrary? On the other hand I must say that dismissing all that is not scripture and never seeking answers is not childish at all, it is in fact retarded. Children are naturally inquisitive.
All praise our noodly master….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Until recently I did not know that there were people who believed in Creationism (or Intelligent Design, which is, as I understand it, the “new name” for Creationism).
I was bought up as a Catholic, but no-one ever denied the truth of Darwinism to me. Until I encountered someone who was bought up on the other side of the Atlantic (I’m English), I had never met anyone who didn’t take evolution as read.
The response to Prof. Dawkins’ book and the (exceptionally silly, in my view) vehement response to the FSM site is quite surprising.
If anyone tried to teach Creationism in British schools we would all collectively choke on our tea and be forced to write strongly worded letters to The Times, but I doubt we would feel it necessary to threaten anyone’s life or damn them to (a non-existent) hell.
I am glad I live in what is still a secular society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@St Matthew.
There is already plenty of stuff out there that is unexplainable. People ponder and hypothesise. Do you suggest it is not studied at all? What would you do? Oh, I think I know….call it god.
You suck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@St Matthew.
.
You have some explaining to do for yourself. There isn’t much proof that your god exists either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s like saying. donkey’s can talk, pigs can fly and a man named jesus lives up in the sky…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi,
It seems to me that your understanding of the issue is not correct, to say the least.
1) I think you are mistaken with the idea that scientists hate/refute/deny religion. In fact, most people criticising Intelligent Design do NOT refute the existence of God. What they are saying, basically, is that religion and science should never be mixed together. Religion answers to the “Why?”, science answers to the “How?”. Each side should never try to cross the fence and go in the other’s territory, like I.D. tries to do. I would be bashing science right now if it was by any means trying to explain the “Why” of the universe.
2) There are currently plenty of phenomena unexplainable by scientific means. For instance, we know both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to be true, but they are currently incompatible and even contradict each other. But this is not the first time it happens; it has happened all the time for the last 400 years. But, like you say, we never *gasp* and say it’s God; we just persevere and find the answers sooner or later.
At the time that nuclear reactions had not yet been discovered, no one knew where the Sun’s energy came from. What if we had then said “We cannot explain it… therefore it’s God!” ? Is God a nametag that you put on anything you don’t understand?
3) If there is someday any hard, irrefutable evidence of God having engineered the universe, then I’ll believe it. But as of today, that still did not happen.
Mark
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gemma–I hold out hope that the US can learn from our British brethren. Religion–no, not religion, a particular of Christian fundamentalism has become very entrenched in American society that you see things like ID in science classrooms. I really wish we were more secular.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“A Darwinian macroevolution-denying Physician”
> Fellow Pastafarians, there may be another explanation for this self-proclaimed physician-ship.
.
> Traditional Christian teaching is that the Gospel of Luke was written by a friend of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, who referred to him as “the most dear physician”. Consider further the title “Doctor of the Church” for those who wrote most persuasively and intractably on doctrine. Perhaps the halt, blind, lame, or those suffering any illness are not in danger of medical malpractice at the hands of ADM-DP after all. One can hope…
.
.
@ Gemma
“If anyone tried to teach Creationism in British schools we would all collectively choke on our tea and be forced to write strongly worded letters to The Times, but I doubt we would feel it necessary to threaten anyone’s life or damn them to (a non-existent) hell.”
> Even here in usa-land, this sentence threatened my own afternoon tea! Very nice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First post:
First of all, let me say that I think the whole FSM thing is hilarious! I’m especially tickled at the thought of getting my 16 year-old son an FSM t-shirt for, of all things, Christmas. LOL
As far as the Big Debate goes…
As I understand it, this all stems from a question of whether macroevolution should be taught in the classroom as irrefutable fact. First of all, why should I really care?! If I have taught my kids to think for themselves, then they will feel as free to question and examine what they’re exposed to in the classroom as much as in any other venue. The fact of the matter is, scientific “knowledge” is evolving. Those tried and tested hypotheses that have graduated to “Theory” status are tweaked and re-worked and affirmed or tossed aside for something better (or worse) on a regular basis.
So, for me, the question really is… have we, the parents, taught our children how to *think*?! And have we demonstrated by example that it’s okay to admit that we… just…don’t…know…? (my Captain Kirk impression, there) lol
At any rate, I haven’t quite figured out the “God” thing for myself yet, though I do recognize that as the focus of scientific study narrows to subatomic phenomena or expands to questions of the origins of the universe, the lines between scientific and philosophical thought become oh-so-blurry. Which begs the question… why isn’t philosophy taught before college-level?
Isn’t it fabulous that we live in a country where we can openly discuss these things??!! I think so…
In response to some of the rudeness flying around here, though, I’m compelled to use my most stern Mommy-voice to say, “Children… play nice!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What a condescending wanker. As a physician, you should know better than to reduce science to a “godditit” wonder hypothesis.
You religious nuts have one major problem, and that is you start with a conclusion and look for evidence that fits. Real science, on the other hand, makes conclusions based on discovered fact, and continues to evolve its conclusions as facts emerge.
If god exists, and he did it, then prove it, otherwise shut the fuck up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@elyzajane- “As I understand it, this all stems from a question of whether macroevolution should be taught in the classroom as irrefutable fact.”
Actually it’s about the unfounded and scientifically disproved idea of creationism being taught as a science subject, even though it is completely devoid of science.
Of course there are the hard line atheists like me who like to point out that humanity should move beyond the ideas of religion, and use logic and reasoning to show why.
That’s why I praise the FSM. It makes more since then any other religion.
I’d like to see the Christians, Muslims and Hindus use a graph to prove their point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gemma – Sadly, it is on the rise over here too. Over the course of this last year, I’ve been told by two people who both left school about 5 years ago that they don’t believe in evolution. I know one of them explained away this with reference to all of the standard ID lines, and described herself as “a devout christian”, the other I walked away from and didn’t challenge her on, as she’s somebody I actually work with and I really couldn’t face stirring up bad feeling in the office. Those two between them are basically what prompted me to finally seek out Richard Dawkins book and return to this site. With the new City Academies, it’s open for someone with the money to suggest the curriculum. Reg Vardy, the second hand car dealer, has sponsored at least one school, and may even be looking for a chain of them, in the north of England which actively promotes ID and creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correction to my last message – company is called Reg Vardy, but the individual concerned is Sir Peter Vardy. Not sure if it’s a family firm or if he decided people would be more likely to buy a car from Reg than Sir Peter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@elyzajane Dec 9th, 2007 at 1:31 am
“As I understand it, this all stems from a question of whether macroevolution should be taught in the classroom as irrefutable fact.”
“The fact of the matter is, scientific “knowledge” is evolving. Those tried and tested hypotheses that have graduated to “Theory” status are tweaked and re-worked and affirmed or tossed aside for something better (or worse) on a regular basis.”
.
Hi elyzajane
I think you’ll find the following article quite enlightening. Francis Collins is a theist and also the director of the human genome project.
“Review of Francis Collins (2006) The language of God”
“They are not the first evidence for Common Descent, because all sorts of evidence have been available since Darwin. But they are extremely enjoyable and beautiful.”
.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you listen to any of these christian fundamentalists trying to refute evolution, their argument runs something like “do you mean to tell ME , blah blah, blah. ” In other words, they assume the conclustions of evolution are impossi ble on their face, and everything follows from there. It’s called “Begging the Question”. Obviously, the evidence for the theory is overwhelming, and the strict fundamentalist with their view the world is only 4000 years old are contradicted by a number of disciplines, from Geology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, paleontology, linguistics, et. al. The sad part of all of this is we have presidents and presidential candidates who have unquestionably been exposed to this mountain of evidence and yet maintain they don;t believe it, and are looking to accommodate the primitivists in their desire to reshape american education into a kind of fundamentalist recruitment and indoctrination program. Just show what whores some of these people truely are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Using science to prove or disprove religion is like using a jackhammer to fix your computer. It’s a great tool for what it’s supposed to do, but it’s not supposed to be used like that.
Using religion to prove or disprove science is like trying to cut a hole in concrete with Norton Systemworks. It’s a great tool for what it’s supposed to do, but it’s not supposed to be used like that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Physician’s obloquy applies more squarely to his own position than to the “science” he decries. An honest search should locate a library at the nearest University (Bible colleges excepted, LOFLMAO) that might help. A commonplace response – which, to the credit of Pastafarians everywhere has not (’til now?) been uttered – nevertheless should be:
.
PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a mountain of evidence – trouble is you might actually have to go to a library and READ IT.
For example – whales have vestigial gills – which they don’t use (they are mammals that come up regularly for air). This is easily explained by evolution because many millions of years ago the whale’s ancestor was a sea-dwelling animal, which then evolved (over millions of years) to become a land-dweller. The gills were no longer used. The whale is very closely related to the hippopotamus.
Millions more years passed, and the whale became the animal we know today. And guess what… we have DNA evidence to prove these things. It’s hard evidence. No need for invisible floaty beings, no need for imaginary sky-pixies creating whales with unused remains of gills.
It’s all there in libraries, universities etc. That’s where.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Geoff Mather
Just to add a postscript to your eloquent and succinct example and comment, another place for Physician to look is: everywhere and anywhere; he can look in the ocean, the rocks, and into the light-years of space, and he might finally consult his own colleagues who – more often than he seems to realize – have sorted out the hard facts of biology, chemistry, and genetics that give the Physician at least the appearance of an actual healer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m 13 and even i know about Darwinism.First of all Darwin did believe in god(from my knowledge)Since he couldn’t explain it any other way.So think about it this way the bible said a pensioner got 2 of every animal built a ark if you can believe that you can easy believe in DNA.Also how can a super powerful perfect creature that no human could comprehend exist if we can comprehend him in one book so basically your insulting your god.
“Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific (i.e. to you, that means something supporting Darwinian macro evolution) in your eyes.”
So wheres the evidence for these miracles god has done.I think of the bible like wikkipedia i could get it to say cheese tastes like sour monkey spit should i take that literally.Also don’t come back with that argument you shouldn’t take some part literally if you can take some literally why take and literally.As a good christian as you claim to be you should already know that god gave people free will to use.
“Nothing personal to any of you guys. I suppose you all have good intentions. I do wish you well and sincerely hope you find Truth.” right back at you
The whole point of religion to start with is to scare the masses into slavery “dont do this god will punish you”Ultimaty cheaper then soldiers.
IN the end theres more evidence for darwin then “god” making the earth in 7 days.
God bless you :P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution?”
Er…where is the damn solid evidence for the exitence of God?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@callum thomas Dec 12th, 2007 at 1:16 am
“I’m 13 and even i know about Darwinism.First of all Darwin did believe in god(from my knowledge)”
.
RAmen callum :)
At 13 you’re way way more informed than most of the YEC/IDiot adults I’ve come across.
You’re right…. Darwin was a devout believer in God when he wrote Origin of the Species. He even had intentions of becoming an Anglican clergyman.
From his notebooks, he states that he fully expected to see Gods work in nature when he took his trip as a naturalist on the Beagle. However he also held back for 20yrs from publishing Origin of the Species, because of the religious and moral implications of his discoveries.
Darwin gave up his faith when his daughter died in 1951. Origin of the Species was published in 1959.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Eden and Evolution: Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God?”
.
“Brown University’s Ken Miller, a devout Catholic, noted in his book Finding Darwin’s God: “If a lack of scientific explanation is proof of God’s existence, the counterlogic is unimpeachable: A successful scientific explanation is an argument against God. That’s why this reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than it is to science.”
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html
.
Yep! :) The ID/YEC clowns at Discovery aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed. More like spoons!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Fusllier – I was beginning to wonder if the people asking that question had any sense of irony.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench Nikkiee
“Darwin gave up his faith when his daughter died in 1951. Origin of the Species was published in 1959.”
Typing a “19″ instead of an “18″ is understandable, but twice in a row (from somebody that doesn’t usually make that many errors) is just funny. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My pleasure Jennyanydots
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doesn’t it hurt your eyes to see in such harsh black and white? Throw in some grey there, soften the view.
– “All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God.”
You’ve seriously never heard the suggestion of evolution guided by God, (or a god-like figure).
– “If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned.”
Probably, but only because to TELL someone known to be of different beliefs that yours are “correct” is arrogant and condescending. Also, a Democratic Convention is clearly an inappripriate place to discuss Republican ideas, perhaps the two should be kept to their own clearly marked arenas.
– “You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means.”
There are oodles (noodles) of things that can’t be explained by science, all that means is we haven’t YET found out how to prove them. Because of this wonderful thing called evolution we are constantly learning, adapting, adjusting to our environment and it’s changing state and what we know about it. The scientific knowledge gained in the last hundred years alone is staggering, do you mean to suggest that a 19th c. doctor who believed a woman who died of an anuerysm actually died of a ‘weak constitution’ was a close-minded extremist? We only have what we are given, but we are given more every day.
– “Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified…”
My favourite line. In my experience, terrified cynics tend to manifest themselves in loud, angry nay-sayers who live with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. So far all the Pastafarians I’ve come across are light-hearted and logical people open to relevant and appropriate discussions about beliefs. The operative word being ‘appropriate’. (I’ve noticed they’re also a heck of a lot more gracious in their arguments).
– “Save the glib condescension for the next generation of potential converts to either of your–dare I say–pathetic religions.
Nothing personal to any of you guys.”
No comment on that one, it’s just perfect on it’s own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Haas anyone else here ever noticed that the line, “nothing personal,” is, in a manner similar to the phrase, “no offense,” almost always preceded by or found following a personally offensive statement. Give me some feedback on that, because I want to know if that is a global truth, as I suspect, or just an experience I’ve had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@El Peatieablo Dec 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
@Wench Nikkiee
.
“Darwin gave up his faith when his daughter died in 1951. Origin of the Species was published in 1959.”
Typing a “19″ instead of an “18″ is understandable, but twice in a row (from somebody that doesn’t usually make that many errors) is just funny. :)
.
Serious thanks El Peatieablo :)) I completely missed that….obviously! Bloody time machines :p)
Cheers.
If you think I don’t usually make many errors, you should check out some of my posts after I’ve been playing with the IDiots on a few forums for more than a day or so…..absolutely woeful. I blame having to constantly read all that illiterate garbage!
Least that’s my excuse and I’m keeping it! (:))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench Nikkiee
Anything for the wenches (unless it cuts into my fishing time). ;)
.
No but seriously, that’s the first time I’ve ever noticed you making a non-typo kind of error (and it is obvious that you actually knew what should have gone there).
.
On another note, 4 days until Holiday break (or the more P.C. term, “christmas” break). \/\/007 \/\/007 !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh. My. Word.
Is there an infinite amount of these people out there? Maybe we should stop replying and try to ignore them. After all, if we ignore them they don’t exist, right? Or does that only work for scientific theories?
Trying to talk sense into these people is irreducibly pointless.
Stupid fucking mammals.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good news for everyone! Evolution is right! You can stop debating! YOU’RE WELCOME!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I felt I had to reply on this:
I find it ironic you define yourself as a physician when clearly, the practice of medicine greatly depends on the clear knowledge of Evolution. To get an FDA approval of any medicine, it must go through rigorous tests by sampling it to a surprising number of animals. Once a company believes they’ve found a medicine that reaches their goal, they first test it on small animals, maybe mice or hamsters, then move on to bigger ones such as dogs, cats, cows, and pigs. As each tests passes, the animal next to be tested become more and more closely related to humans’ biological and genetic composition. The final test subjects, which comes to no surprise to evolutionists and biologists, are chimpanzees and humans. And it’s worth noting I learned this in a summer school field trip a long time ago.
With such a tight test in place, it is very rare to see any new, government approved medicine. The biggest reason that I can trust my medications when the doctor prescribes one is because I know it went through an incredibly unforgiving test sequence, unlike the many other drugs that unfortunately fails. Without the concept of evolution in place, I would trust my medications much less.
As for the proof, I can say it’s rare to see a solid proof of evolution (one may claim the peppered moth experiment is one, but even I’m skeptical at this). However, evolution is a scientific theory (as in, still debated in countries like this one) for the simple reason that it can be disproved in the following ways:
*Make a hamster appear spontaneously
*A donkey and a rhinocerous give birth to a human baby
*That a rabbit fossil is found with the same half-life as the dinosaurs
*And so forth.
What FSM brings to clear light is that religion cannot be disproved, let alone proven. The lack of proof AND disproof, thereof, makes Creationists un-scientific, and lacks the true qualification of being taught in a science class. Controversial theories, or theories with disproofs in them (e.g. Tri-color theory on the eye), are valid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Putting it here because it seems nicely relevant for next time someone starts asking us for evidence of intermediate species. I heard on the news this morning that they’ve what they think is the land-based creature that returned to the sea and evolved into Wales – see here for the BBC story – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7150627.stm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If I were to go into the Democratic National Convention and tell them that Republican ideas are correct, even if my ideas hold value they will be shunned.”
.
Do think about what you’re saying, PLEASE! If you went to the Democratic National Convention and told them Republican ideas are correct – well, I don’t know how it works in America, but here it seems that if somebody goes to, say, a New Labour conference and promotes Tory ideas which have obvious reason behind them, the Labour manifestos will *mysteriously* morph into something which at least approaches the Tories’.
But politics is corrupt, anyway, so by comparing religion to it, all you’re doing is putting down religion in general.
.
And, well, if there’s no solid evidence for SCIENCE (which is, like philosophy, actually, by definition, the search for truth and evidence), then where the hell is the evidence for GOD? So, the universe can’t be ruled by laws which are solid but indescribably complex, but it can be ruled by a God who is
- A ‘jealous God’
- A ‘loving God’
- A cruel God
- A kind god
- Jesus
- Jesus’ father
- A rapist
- A murderer
- Omnipotent
- Unable or unwilling to stop evil
- Supremely powerful
- Matched in power by the Devil
AND
- Invisible?
Yeah…. definitely more plausible…
.
There’s a fundie group who come into our school sometimes – lovely people, except when they start preaching – and the best argument they can come up with for God seems to boil down to ‘you can’t see him, therefore he exists’.
Gravity is a definite; if you drop a lead weight on a fundie, it will fall on their head.
Centrifugal force is a definite; if you spin a bucket of water around on a piece of string, is ‘God’ holding the water in the bucket?
Evolution is not a definite; it is, however, a theory which has been proved far more efficiently than the concept of ‘God’, and, as a logical human being, I will tend towards the better-proved theories.
.
The day you can offer me as many proofs for God as I can offer you proofs against, I will convert. But that day hasn’t come yet, and I doubt it ever will.
.
.
Sorry for the long post, people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God”
Sorry, hi, I’m a Pastafarian. We believe the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Maybe you have us confused with someone else?
Kindest regards,
Expie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You Darwinists are essentially sore afraid that one day someone might posit something scientific that is unexplainable by any scientific means. And you might have to entertain the notion of God! *gasp* “But that isn’t science…we can’t consider it! God doesn’t exist, only infinitely finely-tuned physical laws that don’t vary and an essentially infinitely complex universe!” – or perhaps keep searching for the “scientific” explanation – before we fall flat on our faces and praise the FSM for it’s magical wonders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Blasphemer!
I hope he simmers slowly withe the tomatoes and parsley in hell, for pastafarianisim is truth and all who oppose it will be dealt with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the evidence lies in the fact that a flying spaghetti monster is as likely to exist as your god. We think that a large amount of tasty pasta is more interesting than a bearded giant man in the sky who, out of all the other spices, created us to look like him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How’s about this, prove your ID theory and I will become a christian. I am sure that god will forgive me, after all, all I have to do is ask right? Until then keep your ignorance to yourself. It is pompous overly sanctimonious asses such as yourself that apply theirt own brand of meta-science to these arguments and serve to only confuse the poor marginally educated homeschoolers that seem to be making up the front ranks of christian soldierdom these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Certainly you FSMers are among the most cynical and, yes, terrified of the notion that someday you might have to draw a conclusion that will force you to consider something that is not purely scientific
OMG LOL were worshipping a FREAKIN’ SPAGHETTI MONSTER lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
charles darwin studied and observed and tried to draw the most logical conclusions from the available evidence. no one risks eternal unpleasantness if they disagree with one of his points. try questioning a sunday school teacher about how noah could have swam to australia and then came back bringing, kangaroos,tasmanian devils, the funnel web spider,and the countless other creatures native only to that continent. how many trips would he have to make? and two of each no less, carrying 2 kicking kangaroos would have been a huge challenge in itself, the funnel web spiders are highly venemous and would have to be handled very gently. the duckbill platypus, and tasmanian devils dont get along either so that would have made that swim a 2 tripper right? theories can be changed if proof is staring you right in the face. you are required to believe what the pastor tells you without question and face eternal torture if you disagree. thats why native americans were called indians, the church said the earth was flat and the mere suggestion of a round world meant the loss of your standing in the community, your job and probably your life as it was heresy to attempt to use common sense. these people are trying to hold on to their wealth by any means possible. if god spoke to you in a dream and told you to sacrifice your child would you do it? he has asked that before of abraham. or has that part been altered out? you cant let someones interpretation of a 3500+ year old book cloud common sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If it isn’t explainable, we ain’t interested. That’s kind of the point about the whole FSM phenomena – why can’t the FSM lie at the limit of science, instead of a Christian (or other god)? The saddest thing about your viewpoint is that it leads us nowhere – I guess that is the reason you are a physician. The reason you will never publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal is not that you think outside the box, but that your box is empty. You can’t publish a paper that just attacks someone else’s research for being incomplete – you have to come up with alternate explanations based on the same evidence. And there are only so many papers you can publish claiming “god did it” “irreduceable complexity” “god works in mysterious ways,” etc. The bible is finite as well. So twenty years from now, even your “Journal of Bible-based non-macroevolutionary biology” is going to be pretty boring and repetitive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What an ignorant piece of shit- Go fuck yourself Mr. Physician. None of what you are saying makes any sense at all. “Macroevolution” is well illustrated in nature, the fossil record and the genes of all the animals in the world. It has nothing to do with “outside the box thinking” Go look up endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimps. That’s pretty much all the “proof” you need for “macroevolution”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0