“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.
Here is another:
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
2. has a non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Test 1.
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.
The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.
If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.
Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:
“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”
Test 2:
1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
Third analogy:
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.
Test 3
Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?
Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?
3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…
To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”
Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China?
B. Partial knowledge of China?
C. Absolute knowledge of China?
“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.
Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.
Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive
In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.
God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.
Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-Jonathon
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
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
errr…. those are Ray Comfort’s and Kirk Cameron’s arguments…
come on! he didn’t even come up with his own arguments, he just copy-past arguments that were debunked before all ready…
and the same idiotic argument that a car wasn’t made by evolution…
that MIGHT be because IT’S NOT ALIVE, IT CAN’T HAVE A MUTATION, IT CAN’T GO THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION!
those creationists are becoming more and more desperate…
yah and the cucumber was made by god so it could be used as a dildo. and volcanoes exist so stupid people like you could jump in them. seriously, i could find a billion things that could be arbitrarily anthropomorphised. also, your argument about truth and absolute knowledge is circular. all the claims you make and fail to make assume some sort of absolute knowledge that you subjectively create, you can never prove anything since no one has absolute knowledge, just like i cant prove anything to you because your so hard headed. language lies, god is dead, lie creatively
oh yah, your argument doenst prove the existence of god, only suggests numerous gods.
you would think that if the banana was intelligently designed that it would be much better designed. And also why is the one thing that is designed for the human mouth also desgined perfectly for monkeys who actually eat them more hmmmm
You can’t prove a negative…ok, I would recommend to see the article
.
You Can Prove a Negative
by Steven D. Hales
.
in skeptics: “http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html”
.
In general, you can’t prove a negative by induction -althought you can in maths;
contradiction is a good way to prove a negative. We could give an easy example (i think just a kid could understand this example, I wonder if a fundie…):
.
Premises
1.- God don’t lies us
2.- Slavery is bad
3.- God doesn’t approve bad things
so
4.- God doesn’t approve slavery
.
5.- The Bible recommends slavery
and therefore
6.- The Bible is the Word of God
comes to a contradiction. Or 6. is not true, or one of the previous premises is false (I fear fundies may want to disprove premise 2.)
.
Of course, when we are speaking about magic, they have always an explanation:
-It’s a parable
or:
-It was the best thing to do in those times (as if God were a politician)
maybe:
-The God of the Old Testament it’s not the same as in the New Testament (!!??)
my prefered is: “The ways of God are unfathomable”, or “we humans can’t expect to understand the inmensity of God”; and we are coming back to the dragon in my garage.
.
Science has proved:
1.- There is not a Heaven in the Sky, and Christians said it was in some kind of parallel world
2.- Earth is round, and fundies said that “circle” in the Bible was meaning “sphere”
3.- Earth is the solidification of a large amount of gases that were revolving around the sun, and Christians said that “god created the Earth” is a metaphore, and God indeed created the Universe
4.- Humans “evolved from apes”, again the clay-made man was a metaphore and God manipulated the genes, or created the genes, or stablished the rules of evolution, or stablished the physics rules that comes to evolution…
…you know, is a non-ending game. Any advance of the science explains something we didn’t understand, and therefore the existence of God is reduced and re-interpreted
.
And we all know that the FSM created the earth -and a midget- while He was drunk, and His noddly appendages are playing with the scientifics tests, only for a laugh.
.
RAmen!
.
P.D.: Sorry for the spelling and grammar, again, english is not my mother language
@ You (calling yourself ME :p) Mar 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“R you saying that the thing that the thing or person that created us is a ball of spaghetti with 2 meatballs?”
.
Of course not….how ridiculous! The real genuine bona fide creator is in fact a FLYING Spaghetti MONSTER with two meatballs.
RAmen
ME posted:
.
“Mar 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
im confused some people seem to be referring to the FSM as being God. R you saying that the thing that the thing or person that created us is a ball of spaghetti with 2 meatballs?”
.
Yes.
.
RAmen
I reject your proposal and insert my own. The human was designed with the banana in mind, as bananas came first. Also, what exactly are you arguing? You come here spouting of how the world was intelligently designed, which is what we as Pastafarians believe anyway. You probably just believe that your God did it. The key word is INTELLIGENT, and I would assert that FSM is obviously more intelligent than your God and will gladly accept any challenges you can come up with.
Youre right, try this theory it works much better: Billions of years ago, there was a big bang that created a fully formed omnipotent creator. This creator selected 1 of billions of galaxies, and from it 1 of a billion of planetary systems to create a relatively stupid biped in his image. From clay.
Don’t forget that while God was designing the 40,000,000 nerve endings in the eye, he failed to notice that attaching the nerves on the outside would be a better routing. Instead he routed them to the interior of the eye requiring a hole in the eye to route them back out. This hole results in the blind spot that all humans have. If Biology reveals the existence of a designer, most often it reveals a poor designer.
.
Does this reflect a God who could have used more than six days to create everything? A God that drinks a little too much? A God that created us in his image (note, he gave the octopus a superior design with no blind spot)? Or a God who designs things slowly over a number of incremental steps and occasionally paints himself into a corner (aka local minimum)?
.
My preference is a God that drinks too much.
.
RAmen
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
It is a nightmare because I have to put up with the ignorance and stupidity of people like you.
everything is the same dont you get it? god or no god, spaghetti or no spaghetti. Man created science and man created god. Science and Religion are both right and both wrong…. ZOMG paradoxical statement…
The eye was not created by chance it was created by selection: selecting what worked and what did not.
Do your research.
These arguments actually support evolution. The more agreeable the feature of the fruit, the more often a fruit with that feature is eaten, causing the spread of that particular fruit’s offspring, until the fruit is widely distributed along with the feature. Through this process, the feature becomes increasingly pronounced. Therefore bananas that fit in your hand are eaten more than those that do not. Bananas with an easy to remove peel are more desirable than those that make a mess. Bananas that are a nice size to be eaten are consumed more than those that are too big to eat easily or those that are too small to be satisfying. Thank you for the excellent example of evolution.
Are you familiar with the concept of a “straw man?” It’s a device used by morons to demonstrate their total lack of understanding of a topic, which they then go on to disprove, thinking that they’re making an interesting or valid argument.
In a hilarious twist, the only real result of a straw man argument is loads of entertainment for people who are smarter than you, so you should stop now unless you want us to keep laughing. Just some friendly advice.
By the way, I think platypusses are a much better joke; the FSM is still the master!
The Banana is absolute, so is the spaghetti monster
I read those first two arguments in Middle school, while I was still a Christian, and I still found them absurdly weak.
Our god has bigger balls than theirs.
-J.T.S.
The banana happens to be easy for humans to eat? well heres the creationists nightmare. Sea urchins. Can be a very attractive colour, but are spiky and sharp enough to pierce the hand of the person that grabbed it. if you can open it, it’s good to eat. however, some of the spines are filled with deadly toxins that can kill 10 grown men in a single stab. apprently god made a mistake on that one.
Jesus Christ! No wonder I spent time defending my Esoteric Christian & Restorationist beliefs, this letter is the biggest load of douche baggery that I’ve ever read in my life.
This guy has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, so feel free to stuff a “Large Dick:The Fundamentalist Christian’s Public Nightmare & Private Fantasy” in his mouth to put a cork on his idiocy.