“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
Billions of years ago
Published by Bobby Henderson February 26th, 2008 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism). 599 Comments
599 Responses to “Billions of years ago”
“10. [ a banana] Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.”
I am holding a banana and it is curving AWAY from my face!!!
“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.”
Actually, the universe is so enormously vast that the chance of us NOT happening is statistical monstrosity (and who made George Gallup the font of all knowledge anyway?)
However, most of what you say is of course true, and points firmly to the existence of His Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just substitute ‘FSM’ for everytime you have written ‘God’ and you will see what I mean!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To save a group of people a father lets his son be tourtured to death;
A this father is a blithering idiot
B this father doesnt exsist
C if this father isnt worth SHIT as a father
D Lupus
E everything but Lupus the answer is never Lupus
Anyone can make logic statements supporting their claim and make them sound intelligent, thats just good PR. To make a logic statement and a Joke refrenceing House MD ///well that just takes some Noodely Goodness
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are aware God isn’t flesh and blood, he’s spaghetti and meatballs.This poor soul obviously does not like or understand natural selection and requires a more balanced spiritual diet. I pray his noodly appendages touch your heart some day soon.
R’amen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i would reply to most of that but it’s bed time… (maybe i will tomorrow)
anyway try reading anything by richard dawkins (i.e. the selfish gene, the blind watchmaker, the god delusion). they should rebuff most of “your” points
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see you’re recounting the flawed arguments from episode 7 of Ray Comfort’s Way of the Master at us. IronChariots.org has a point-by-point breakdown of the flaws in these fallacious arguments, as well as others made in that episode.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But we share the same opinion, we also think that the world had to have been intelligently designed, we just disagree on whom did the designing. But even so, you should make sure all of your examples apply fully. Bananas used to have seeds, before they were domesticated. Natural selection would cause the bananas that are simpler to hold to be eaten (and spread) more often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christians are so egotistical, to think that everything must have been created by man. Because, let’s face it: God is created to by man to elevate man, to delude us into thinking we’re more important in the grand scheme of things than we really are. Your Coca Cola and building ideas are examples of man-made objects and therefore make no sense to compare to “godliness.” As for the banana, yes, it happens to be so conveniently “pro-human,” but what of the, oh, thousands of other food choices out there that aren’t so obvious? What about the near-impervious coconut, the almost-deadly rhubarb, the hard to find truffle? It is by random chance that the banana happens to be so very convenient. Besides, if it’s so designed for humans, God must obviously greatly approve of oral sex because the banana just screams “LOL I’M EATING A PENIS!”
I ask you, Jonathon: why do Christians insist that atheists and agnostics are “lost” and that we deny God because we don’t want to admit it? Why can’t you accept that not being Christian makes some people very happy? That’s what religion and beliefs are really about: being happy with the world around you. And yet you people can’t seem to go a day without bringing non-Christians down, without believing that your way is the only way. Let us believe what we want, please. And do not attempt to “logically” insult our intelligence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He started with the banana….
FAIL.
MASSIVE FAIL.
MASSIVE UTTERLY TREMENDOUS FAIL.
STUPENDOUSLY I WALK AROUND WITH MY EYES CLOSED OR NEVER BOTHER REALLY STUDYING WHAT IT IS I AM TALKING ABOUT, AND AM SURPRISED WHEN I SPEW COMPLETE NONSENSE, OR WALK STRAIGHT INTO A POLE FAIL!
…was specially designed by his imaginary friend, you idiot the banana was domesticated by humans, the natural version is a fibrous fruit that resembles an elongated hand grenade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are one arrogant son of a bitch.
Also, not everyone here is a Atheist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
By the way, Jonathon, the banana hypothesis is false. Humans have been cultivating bananas and manipulating their evolution for a long time.
And simply because one does not understand how a system works does not mean that the system is magical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow. There so much that wrong in this but I’ll take a moment to point out the largest problem that underlies all of them. While analogy is useful in simplifying a complex explanation into more bite-sized pieces, it is not science. It is not proof. It’s not even a good argument. There is nothing convincing in any of the above suppositions. There’s not even anything really intriguing.
And the banana thing. . . I saw the video on YouTube.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re apparently recounting Ray Comfort’s arguments from episode 7 of Way of the Master at us. IronChariots.org has a point-by-point breakdown of the flaws in these fallacious arguments, as well as others made in that episode.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another example of someone who rejects evolution despite having no understanding of what it is. Evolution is not chance. It is a highly non-random process. If you cannot understand and appreciate one of the most elegant solutions mankind has ever obtained for itself (natural selection), I weep for you.
.
Plus, have you seen a wild banana? Click here http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/wildbanana.jpg. If anything, bananas are further proof of evolution because we can use selective breeding to create bananas that are much more desirable.
.
Please, please. I beg you. Educate yourself on a subject before you make up your mind on it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no order to the atom, because of quantum mechanics.
and we don’t say there is no god. we just say that from all observable
evidence, the flying spaghetti monster is god
see, of course a building has a builder.
in the way the beer volcano was created by the fsm.
and everything else was created by the fsm
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This has got to be fake. No rational person would cite the banana video as lending credence to ID; it’s too stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
hahahaha…
i just laf. whats the point of explaining anything. you obviously believe totally in this.
good luck, and may you be touched by his noodly appendage some day and see the light.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Q. Have you stopped beating your wife ? Yes or No
Pasta in all its forms exists and is seen everyday. That doesnt take faith. String Theory takes faith. The Big Bang is observable. I have an aunt in Barnet. I havent seen her for some time but I know she’s there. But Jehovah, Yahweh, God hmmm. Not sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAHAHAHAHA !
Substitute penis for banana!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i would actually advise you read some dawkins. it really opened my mind on the subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Banana = Bible?
Hmm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I completely agree, I don’t know why there are all these Atheists on this site trying to say He doesn’t exist, isn’t it inescapably plain to see that the great FSM created everything. He was even nice enough to give us something delicious yet healthy in the banana. RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Man I love when these dorks quote mine darwin and einstien. Some of them even quote mine Dawkins as if he actually thinks there is a sky daddy. I dont know why you bother, even a child can see through that. The creationists are so good at quote mining the Bible to make their points they think that this is the correct way to debate.
First this guy quotes the utterly brain dead Ray Comfort with that banana nonsense. As if that ridiculous Masters of the Way nonsense hasn’t been debunked like a thousand times. I guess the pineapple or artichoke are God’s way of saying get the hell out of here! why would god make only one food with all these seemingly good quality? Why doesnt meat come in a a self sealed envelope? Let me guess, god works in mysterious ways.
Then you go into the tired old eye argument…its SOOOOO complex that there is no way it could be natural! Because you are the expert on everything there is about the complexities of the eye and since you say its impossible, therefore it is. Look up: argument from incredulity. Its a tired and old fallacy. Human beings HAVE recreated the functionality of an eye, ever hear of a camera? Not only that we have improved on it, we can see into wavelengths that the eye never needed to adapt to. We can see such incredibly small features that we can see individual atoms. So not only does your god make a crappy camera, we have done much better! So much for the idea that complexity requires a god.
What are the chances you are here writing these utterly inane and easily debunkable arguments? The chances are extremely thin! Wayyyy back, a long time ago out of the millions of people on the planet, a man an woman had to meet, get excited about each other, and make a baby. some time near that event, another couple had to meet, get excited and make a baby. then by strange coincidences, those two babies had to grow up, through all of lifes zig zags and meet, get excited and make a baby, while some time near that time, a completely different set of parents had to meet and make a baby. The chances of this happening each time grew from one in many millions to the changes of this genereation one in six billion. Multiply all those odds together and what do you have? Odds that are too great to imagine to you would actually be sitting there writing a totally obtuse essay with ideas that were debunked over 100 years ago. You are a statistical improbability.
Your entire post shows an amazing lack of understanding about the evolutionary process and total ignorance and lack of appreciation for the timescale involved. You dont know the different between spontaneity and accumulation. Your letter shows a complete and disgraceful lack of understanding of an atheists point of view i.e. very few say there is no god, but there is certainly no reason to believe in one without satisfactory evidence, you may as well believe in anything…the entire reason this site exists, but you are too bone headed to see that. The reality of FSM is no more and no less rational than your pet God (although a beer volcano is better than anything conceived of in the bible, so perhaps the FSM is a little more likely).
Your last paragraph is the ultimate in idiocy. We believe our computers turn on because we know that we as a society have developed them. we know that there are smart people who develop them. Who understand the underlying principles. We have evidence that they work. We know the sun rises because we have evidence that the sun has risen for billions of years and the know the mechanism by which that happens. We know that your ‘electrical waves’ (more amazing ignorance) exist because we have observations that they do, formed hypotheses and tested those hypotheses to find that the tests verify the model (forming theories). Now we can directly measure electromagnetic waves directly.
There is no faith in any of your silly examples, there is observation, hypothesis, test and verification. Something a god bot knows nothing about. If went with your method we would stillb e sitting here in the dark ages with every answer to a question being “Goddidit”. Dead end answers to all of lifes questions.
Your ignorance is blinding. It makes my brain hurt to read all that stupid in your one post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s what we’ve always feared…Ray Comfort is contagious.
Yikes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s what we’ve always feared – Ray Comfort is *contagious*.
Yikes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The obvious design of the Coke can points directly to the One who made it, for who else but his Noodliness would choose the colors of alfredo and marinara?
The banana is another brilliant example, a perfectly formed miniature noodly appendage that fits in the hand!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thats a damn good argument you got there…
bit redundant as pastafairinism (sorry for my spelling) is infact a monotheistic religon just like yours (ignoring all the crusaids, general violence, and the fact that we actually read our holy book…)
RAMEN!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Blind Watchmaker argument has been refuted many times – the crux being that a watch/building/car is not self replicating, self organising system.
“From the atom to the universe is there order?”
Actually from the atom to the universe there is chaos – theoretically predictable disorder. On the quantum level pure randomness seems to prevail… Even on the largest scales no two observers can compltely agree on the state of the universe!
“Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?”
Accident implies intent, which implies intelligence. Hardly an either / or question is it?
“What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges?”
Non-Zero. Refuted.
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement.”
I agree. I clam zero insight here so I must conclude that the odds of any particular number of Gods existing is equal. Since there is no limit to numeric value the odds of there being X gods tends towards Zero. No conclusion there, so it seems reasonable to choose the mean number of gods as the most likely. If there are a real number of gods we must consider negative numbers (no good reason not to – in which case the Mean is equal to 0. So from a position of no knowledge or evidence the only reasonable conclusion is that there are zero gods.
FINAL TEST:
The man who sees something he does not comprehend and invokes mysticism to explain it is:
A: Afraid of the unknown.
B: Self delusional.
C: Indoctrinated.
D: Has an ulterior motive.
Could it be that your poor judgement is clouding your logic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What does it take for someone to understand that the eye was not formed by chance! It is not chance, it’s called natural selection: completely different concepts. This video (not mine) explains part of the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
I’m sorry but I cant address all of the yes/no questions as they do not build up to a reasonable point, it would be like saying that: 2+2=4, 2×2=4 therefore if 3+3=6 3×3=6? To say that a building has a designer (or a car or anything else) does not mean that man has one too (except of course for our noodly master).
RAmen and may Parmesan be unto Him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I seriously hope you are joking… especially about the banana. I mean what about the grapefruit? What sane creator would design a citrus that tased so awful and squirted you in the eye when you tried to eat it with a spoon?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
You exposed your opinion in a very constructive way. However, evolution is very far from being just plain “luck”. It is an incremental process, like say a Monte Carlo calculation. That means that some system to achieve his next evolution step will perform a lot of try, the great majority of them unfructuous, but a fraction of those try will eventually make it and gain some advantage. You can relatively easily program an algorithm on a computer that will simulate such a process, it’s mathematic really, but on a larger scale.
The thing is, why do some people who claim to believe in God can’t accept the concept of evolution? I think that saying some greater intelligence designed every thing we see takes away much of the sheer beauty and wonder of the world. Nature is by itself self organising, from the quark to the galaxies. If there is a god who started it all, so be it, and very nice of him too, but we’ll never know.
But still, much more could be said, from either “sides”…
By the way, please pardon my foreigner english and what’s a computer wave?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This looks copy-pasted. Anyway, your technology-faith argument is flawed. The difference between the computer and religion is that if someone wanted to they could go and read a book full of testable facts which would tell them why the computer worked. There exists no such book for any organized religion as far as I know. I agree with part four in that I have insufficient knowledge to make an absolute decision about religion; however you claim that there could exist absolute proof of some religion. I think Douglas Adams wrote some interesting words about absolute proof of a religion destroying said religion, but I cannot recall them. Judging by the end of your essay, you seem to believe in some specific God. By your own arguments you should not. There may exist somewhere absolute proof of the non-existence of your deity. You too have insufficient information to make a decision. Probability arguments seem to me to be flawed as well. Have you calculated any of the probabilities you mentioned? If so, did you compare them to infinity? There has been a great deal of time for these unlikely things to happen, and the bananas are explainable by survival of the fittest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is run-of-the-mill Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort tripe. Not worth trying to argue against, other than the incorrect use of the word “it’s”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh man… I got bored by the end of the banana example. A banana that you see in the shop is about as close to the natural form of a banana as the minced meat is to a cow. The shape, taste, etc. of bananas that we eat result from breeding at banana farms. A natural wild banana is quite far from the atheist nightmare you describe. And it’s funny you should point out that the peel is bio degradable. Is that not the case with every fruit and vegetable?
.
I read the last paragraphs too. I’m glad that the FSM has turned my monitor on for I was so lost before he touched my monitor’s power button.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your arguments remind me of something Douglas Adams said in his 1998 speech at Digital Biota 2 when talking about early man looking at the world in which he lived and concluding that a higher being must have made it for him (Great speech. You should read the whole thing here: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/).
He said, “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
who said there NEEDS to be a builder? you humans are always trying to give everything human traits.
also, please find a hobby.
-veloci raptor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, but if you consider OUR ideas about scientific history, you understand OUR logic and would not be surprised when we say that,
A: the banana is somewhat OLDER than humans, and the convenience in shape is more than likely just an outcome of evolution either for it or for the animals that ate it. It happened for a purpose, but that doesn’t mean that someone had to design it.
B: The oranges may have fallen that way if they HAD A PROPERTY OF ATTRACTION, as atoms DO. Why don’t you a.) redo your basic chemistry and biology courses AND b.) Stop making stupid arguments which I would answer if I were in the mood to become less intelligent than I am now. And also if I felt like reading the entire post, which I don’t.
You have no idea how much joy it brings me to give logical replies to people’s MORONIC POSTS.
And yes, the capitalizations make ME feel better, and are not designed to bother anyone, but if they do and that person is you, I consider it a bonus.
I refuse to post my name, because I have already had to fill it in at the top and if you were smart you would know to look for it there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
who said there NEEDS to be a builder? religious people keep trying to give everything human traits. it drives me nuts.
also, please find a hobby. bananas are for eating, not overthinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hurray plagiarism! Way to state verbatim the weak arguments which others have already made.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.”
.
It doesn’t, so forget it. Thanks, I have.
.
“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.” ”
.
I am guessing you do not believe in our FSM. So, since you also have limited knowledge, you are also an agnostic, by your own logic. You can’t “know” that the FSM does not exist.
.
All that statistical stuff you are trying to shovel at us shows a deep lack of understanding of the natural processes by which simple organisms can become very complex, without any help from some supernatural being. We’ve heard this before. It doesn’t work on us. Soda cans are not life forms that reproduce themselves. Your analogy does not hold. You can make that same analogy over and over again, it still is not valid.
.
Oh, and by the way, since you are so focused on eyes. Did you know that in the human eye, the light-sensing cells actualy face backwards? What kind of intelligent design is that? That’s definitely not the best way to design an eye, and the octopus has eyes where the light-sensing cells face the right way round. That would indicate that eyes developed more than once, using whatever genes were available to the organisms at the time. How is it that our eyes have a less efficient design than an octopus? Lots of things in biology appear to be similarly jury-rigged. Had any backaches recently? Either god did not do a very good job on designing our spines, or we are suffering from being a bipedal animal that developed from a frame originally developed for brachiating and/or knuckle-walking. I find the second explanation much more likely. Appendicitis? Zits? What’s up with those? Pandas need a thumb to hold the bamboo they eat, and instead of an opposable thumb, they developed an elongated wrist bone instead. And it does not work nearly as well as a real thumb would. Either this kind of stuff developed on it’s own, or the “designer” was drunk at the time (obvious evidence in favor of the FSM).
.
I don’t have absolute proof there is no god. I don’t have absolute proof that martians don’t live inside my TV either. There are lots of ideas for which there is no absolute proof that they are wrong. That’s no justification for believing in things for which there is no evidence. I believe in stuff for which I have good evidence. There is plenty of that out there. I see no reason for living my life as if every supernatural idea that someone says is true were actually true. My life is just fine without “faith”.
.
“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?”.
.
Ulterior motive? Are you kidding? With all the pressure to cave in and be a sheep there is in our society today? Blind faith is easy. Thinking is hard. I can’t “find” god because I have seen no reason to go looking for one. I think your lack of logic is clouding your good judgment.
.
RAmen
.
Open your mind, but not so far your brain falls out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oooh, these posts do make me cranky.
I wonder what the poster’s opinion of emergent behavior is – IE, Conway’s game of life.
And I do rather wish they wouldn’t bias the questions so.
“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”
Hey, you, reader, choose between me calling you an idiot, evil, or smart. You wouldn’t be any of the others, would you.
And of course, the Coca Cola can is a object with free-will, just like you and I, isn’t it.
*sigh*
To throw more logic right back onto the fire:
1) God is omnipotent (’knows everything, all the time, everywhere, that ever will, has, and is happening’)
2) God gave man free will (’we can do whatever we want’)
… which is true?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
I immediately see two huge flaws in your reasoning:
1) you think human beings are “the most sophisticated part of creation.” That is pure egocentricity, and based on many faulty assumptions; and
2) you think that if humans cannot understand something, then it can’t be part of the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural).
The truth is, we simply aren’t capable of grasping the immense amounts of time, complexity, flexibility, and space that mother nature has had to work with. Our puny lives last no time at all when compared to the time the universe has been around. Indeed, our puny species has existed for a mere 50 thousand years- again, nothing, when compared with the 14 billion years since the big bang, or even the 4 billion years since the earth was born. Remember- just to emphasize- it takes a thousand thousand to make a million, and a thousand million to make a billion! And, that’s just the time scale- when we add that we know virtually nothing about the universe beyond our immediate neighborhood, the scope or our ignorance itself defies imagination. To think that humans are THE most important thing to have EVER existed ANYWHERE is so completely improbable as to not even merit speculation. Again, complete, blind egocentricity.
I understand the urge to try to come up with explanations for everything. It’s a lot scarier to contemplate the inconceivable immenseness in which we exist- but, still, I prefer to accept that I’m not capable of understanding rather than come up with fairy tales to comfort myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t believe someone is actually using the banana argument. Haven’t you ever been to YouTube, Jonathon?
I can refute this in one argument.
The dessert banana, the so-called “Atheist Nightmare,” was developed by humans for human consumption. The damn things don’t even seed…they have to be propagated artificially by humans. God did not create the dessert banana.
Also:
Allow me to finish that quote. “Origin of Species” Chapter 6: Difficulties of the Theory, under the section entitled “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.”
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.”
He then goes on (oh, how I wish I could type out the entire section) to discuss examples of primitive eyes and the potential for natural selection to create an eye step by step. Please do not quote Darwin out of context, and if you don’t know if the statement is true or false, then don’t use it. A magnificent idea, if I do say so myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First off the banana thing is just stupid. If god wanted to design fruit just for human consumption why did he only design one of all the hundreds of edible fruit to fit humans so well? Did he get bored after designing the banana and just throw the rest together any old way? What about the coconut why so hard to open?
Test 1.
If you are going to quote mine (pulling a quote out of context) at least take the time to read the book you are quoting. The correct quote is: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”The key word in this sentence is SEEMS. What he was saying was that at first glance certain things may SEEM hard to explain, not that they could not be explained as you infer. For your information the evolution of the eye is now very well understood, obviously not by you though. The eye in fact has evolved independently many times in many different animals.
I am not going to bother going through any more of you “quotes” as you obviously havn’t even bothered to research them so rather than me wasting my time I suggest you go and do some proper research.
Test 2
Again I would suggest you go and do some research before you these ignorant ill informed arguments. The whole point of evolution is to explain how complex organisms can come into being small and statically probable steps. The chances that help an animal survive and reproduce will thrive and the ones that don’t will die out. Over a very long period of time combined with changes in the animals’ environment this can lead to a species evolving into a new species. That was the short version of evolution. Go to a library or a book store and pick up a book on evolution for a more in depth explanation. Please don’t come back here with any more stupid ill informed arguments until read a few books on the subject.
By the way you can’t prove that anything doesn’t exists god, aliens the flying spaghetti monster…..anything. What you can show is balance of probability but I won’t hurt your silly little brain by trying to explain it
I have just decided to stop trying to answer your arguments one by one as I have realised that they are in fact all the same dumb argument.
I will say one last thing. It is common courtesy to inform yourself properly of the other persons point of few before critiquing/ridiculing it. I have read the Bible, Koran and many other so called holy books as it would be disrespectful of me to criticises any of the believers of the religions associated with those books without having done so. Please go away and read up a little on what you are talking about, maybe then you will realise just how much shit you just wrote.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just read over my previous post. Sorry about the grammer/ spelling. Its late I’m tired. :/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Coca-cola has a creator. And that is supposed to prove that evolution is false? Bananas didn’t just appear. They evolved. I didn’t know that God or a creator dropped oranges in a row. Is that in the bible? I never heard that. Evolution is not about ultimate origins. But even if it was, your arguments is comparing apples and oranges, even if they were dropped in a row. By the way, I can’t manuever a glass of wine, a plate of food and the ability to eat at a party. So, obviously a creator didn’t do such a great job with us as he did with the banana!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey… He can’t spell Jonathan but the man can do a copy-paste! but is it worth a post? :-)
I’ll tell you one thing… I am what I eat, and I ate supper I cooked myself, so does it mean I cooked myself? HUH!
I submit that nature creates itself too, and it’s dumb enough to do it without a design. yeah. nature is stupid like that. what have you got to say Jonath(a/o)n?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Intellegent design! Let me first say this, am a conservitave ,and a christian. I believe that all life was created by god, and i think it preposterous to propose that life started when the nutrient rich primordial ooze was struck by lightning and single-cell pre-organisms suddenly sprang to life, and have been evolving ever since to form us, or even a salamander. That being said, i don’t like your argument, it hurts more than it helps.
the original argument , which your areguments rip off, and kind of dumb down, and in the case of the bannanna make somewhat …comical. is called the watch maker analogy, and it goes like this.
You are walking through the woods, and you find a beutifull old pocket watch, you open it and see the painted face and the gold hands, you take off the back and look at elaborate gears, the jewled movement, the delicate spring, and you think , this is so complex and elegant it could not have possably sprung up from the ground like a mushroom, or fallen from that tree like an acorn, nore could it have been made by an ignorant beast like the hive of a bee or or the nest of a bird. NO! this was made by an intellegent thoughtfull and clever being, it had to be madeby MAN!!. But look at man ,What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable. He could not have just formed on his own he must have been created by a being more elaborate, cunning and powerfull than him self, only God could have made man, or any living thing. …And then they stop, and you stop and i agree, we didn’t just happen, and i take that on faith, because i must. But they, and you, arn’t talking about faith, you are using logic, and if you are going to use logic to defend your point, your logic needs to be flawless. And so onto the next logical step……..
Think of god, all power, all knowing, everywhere and nowhere, infinite and existing out side of time, so complex that we mere mortals could not possably hope to ever grasp the true reality of god, He could not have just happened He hade to have been made by an even greater beeing more powerfull and complex than GOD… and it must go on like that ,ad infinitum, ad nausium, and it is turtles, the whole way down.
And that is why i don’t like your argument, don’t use logic if you don’t want your arguement to be followed the whole way through. Trying to manipulate logic to support your side, while ignoring the full scope of your reasoning, is as bad as ignoring the points that you pointed out, even worse, because you claim to have logic and reason on your side
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Long post warning!! I’d like to address just one issue you raised, because you are very confused about the difference between knowledge and truth. A quick review:
.
You said, “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.”
.
First, the “absolute statement” you refer to is nothing more than a statement. The term, ‘absolute’ adds nothing to the proposition, expressed by the statement, that there is no God.
.
Next, you go on to assert that for the statement to be true, “one must have absolute knowledge.” This is not the case, at all. For the statement to be true, all that is required is that there is no God. It does not matter what I know when I make the statement. In other words, the truth or falsity of the statement (proposition) depends solely the existence or nonexistence of God, not the extent of my knowledge. There must be an exact correspondence between the proposition and the actual state of affairs expressed by the proposition, ie, “God exists” and the existence of God.
.
If an atheist says, “God exists.” and, in fact, God does exist, would you say that the atheist “knows” that God exists? Of course not. So, you see that knowledge must include an element of belief, as well as an element of truth.
.
In your test question #4, you misdirect the reader by maintaining that one needs “absolute knowledge of China” in order to make a true statement about whether or not there is gold there, when, in fact, what is needed to make the statement that “there is no gold in China” true is just that there is no gold in China.
.
As it is clear that you believe there is a god who (which?) is the designer/creator of the world, the this is for you. I am sure glad that some unknown entity created cut-and-paste. Here we go:
.
Given that there is only one God, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Pastafarians must all worship the same entity (god). See, we already have a point upon which we can agree.
.
Let’s be clear that the name of this deity is beside the point. Some name the deity “God.” Some use the name, “Allah,” “Jehovah,” “Yahweh” or “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” The reference is to one and the same entity. If there is only one “God,” then any disagreement we may have is only about the attributes of this deity, not His, Her, or Its existence.
.
We Pastafarians believe that the the deity has some of the following attributes:
.
He* has many Noodly Appendages.
.
He likes beer, strippers and pirates.
.
He is not vindictive, vengeful or vain.
.
He does not require anyone to believe in him or worship him in order to go to heaven.
.
He does not require sacrifices or purity from us.
.
He is tasty and nutritious.
.
He is REAL and alive today!
.
Pastafarians are a community of peaceful open-minded worshipers. We invite you to join us. You have nothing to loose and so much to gain. Besides, we offer a free thirty day guarantee.
.
RAmen
.
*Some Pastafarian scholars maintain that the FSM is actually a female and should be referred to as “She.” For the sake of convention and because “The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster”, our sacred text, refers to Him as “He,” we will continue to do so for the purpose of this discussion, intending no disrespect to our Wenches or any female Pirates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooh that was a big one – I’ll read it all later thank you. I got lost in the noise somewhere but if I summarize correctly you are suggesting a number of other alternative religions that are also totally impossible to disprove. You’ve almost got the point but quite by accident I suspect. On a side note my personal favorite bit in your work of fiction is where Jacob has a wrestling match with god, and get this – god looses. It’s true, cos it’s in Genesis. Jacob kicks the mighty creator’s butt. Creates a universe in 6 days and gets whooped by one of his minions. Oh the irony. Citation – Genesis 32.24 & 25. Oh any by the way, if you don’t understand something, it was the FSM who did it. I have faith that that is true and that’s good enough for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, thank you for not yelling at the world who disagrees with you.
Your argument does however, have its flaws:
Very briefly, your comparison of the banana and the Coke can just doesn’t work. When I catch my cans having sex in the garbage can, we can debate both the biology and the evolution of the Coke can, but stating the obvious fact that an aluminum can does indeed have a maker does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the banana does as well. It is therefore not at all obvious despite your ending quiz.
The Darwin quote you provide is lifted out of context. (Your writing seems intelligent enough that I suspect you know that.) The paragraph reads:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
I’m not sure what man’s ability or inability to create something from nothing has do with Darwin’s observations.
I don’t know whether or not your quote from George Gallup is correct and complete. Ultimately, I don’t care. I do believe it, though. I wonder if this statistical monstrosity could explain why it took billions of years.
Your Einstein quote is also misleading and again, I believe you know that. Einstein believed in a god that revealed himself in the order of the universe, not in the designer you imply.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your orange reference. If this relates to the statistical improbablity of my being alive, I acknowledge your point. Remember me wondering about the billions of years?
I do love your gold in China argument. Using your own argument, you would have to admit the possibility that your god is a flying spaghetti monster. The alternative to the reasonable mind would be to become agnostic.
Therefore, why are you writing here unless to preach to the choir?
2GsPlease
Like or Dislike:
0 
0