“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”
Jonathan,
Read your own Propaganda before spouting of such poorly argued drivel at us. Case in point – Answers in Genesis – a very prominent Creationist organisation dedicated to communicating the scientific evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis – says in its list of arguments creationists should NOT use to prove their points that:
.
“Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.”
.
Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step (in his opinion, with which AiG obviously disagrees—see Darwin vs. The Eye and An eye for creation).
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
.
You have not taken the time to understand what we are about, and you have not taken the time to actually think through the crap you have inflicted upon us!
.
If you want to have an intelligent debate about the actual issue (teaching creationism as a science) then bring it on, but do some actual research and thinking of your own – don’t just spout dogma you have been spoon fed by idiots.
.
Drew
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You, monsieur, leave much to be desired in your explanation of why there must be a God. I myself heard all of these and much more (I am surprised that you forgot about the giraffes and the numerous ways in which the giraffe is prevented from drowning or receiving a brain hemorrhage while it attempts to drink water from a pond) when I was a staunch 7th Day Adventist.
For instance, when you discuss paint cans and buildings, you seem to have forgotten that paint cans and buildings are inanimate objects incapable of reproduction and genetic mutation. ‘Life’ is defined as that which can reproduce without assistance; this rules out even the lowly virus.
If you must know, evolution didn’t occur with the goal of creating humans; evolution is a process (and I honestly can’t imagine any being, really, that would be sick enough to create a species that voluntarily slaughters, maims, rapes, etc. its own without cause).
If you’d like to learn more about evolution, why all genetic mutations do not result in the death of the member (they can become hidden! very cool), etc. I’d advise you to enroll in a biology course. It gets a bit slow in parts, but overall is worth the time and trouble.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Test 1
As it tastes like malted battery acid, any designer hasn’t much in the way of intelligence. So I’m going to have to go with ‘A’.
Test 2.1
Does a cave count? Are only designed domiciles of interest to you, or will any do? The word ‘building’ presupposes the answer you desire.
How about birds? They can create very impressive contructions. Were these deliberately designed? Did the bird et together with all of his bird buddies and write up some blueprints?
2.2
This presupposes the existance of ‘pigment/paint’.
2.3
This question is so circular it doesn’t get an answer.
Test 3.1
What do you think of as order? Nothing i’ve read on the subject suggests that the universe is anything other than arbitrary.
3.2
This has no purpose besides determining one’s current belief in the matter. It has no other determinable purpose.
3.3
The same as the chances that said oranges will land in any other arrangement. Does this mean that a seemingly random assortment of oranges must have been carefully placed? The likelyhood of such a ‘random’ assortment is the same as a well ordered one.
Test 4
The requirement for this to be true is known as an ‘Alternate Universe’
Test 5
This likewise doesn’t deserve an answer.
Now if you would answer my questions….
1. A benevolent creator that creates a world requiring dentistry would be
A) Stupid
B) Drunk
C) An Underachiever
D) All of the above
E) Non-Existent
2. A creator that made homo sapiens sapiens could be considered
A) Stupid
B) Drunk
C) An Underachiever
D) To have a very odd sense of humor
3. These are
A) stupid questions
B) self-serving questions
C) not noodly enough
D) avoiding actually informing in any way whatever
What about those policemen who are also thieves?
What if the HUMAN evolved to be predisposed to like bananas? And as for that bit about it fitting well in the mouth…Well…Eww. I don’t want to hear that! Did you consider that might not be the best analogy you could have thought of? It has many other conotations. I hope I spelt that right…
Ta.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
……..This hate mail is rather refreshing. The reason we know that Coca-Cola cans are manufactured is because of the evidence for it. We can go to Coca-Cola factories and watch the cans being manufactured. These factories are owned by the Coca-Cola company, which is a commercial company. Commercial companies usually manufacture and sell products to the consumers. We know that Coca-Cola is a soda, and we know that other sodas are manufactured by humans. We see the Coca-Cola lable on the can with infortmation about it. Same for the argument involving the building. We can watch them being built. We can hire people to build them. There are experts in designing and building buildings. Have you actually seen God walking (or floating, flying, swimming, etc.) creating these things?
Next, I don’t claim to have absolute knowledge about the world. But then I could say that Santa Claus is real because you don’t have absolute knowledge about the world. You can “prove” anything using that method. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the claim to back it up.
For the claim about the complexity of the eye, I will refer you to here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
In other words, there wasn’t just one step of evolution that brought humans into existance. We started as much more simple microscopic creatures, and slowly evolved, over time becoming more and more and more complex until we finally hit the level we are at today.
For the idea that the universe is complex, yes, that is true. But that doesn’t really prove anything. You are just saying it is complex. Maybe there are worlds outside our universe, as predicted by String Theory. We could just be one tiny slice in a much more complex world than we originally believed. Also, for anyone interested in String Theory, here is the link to a NOVA video about it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Well, at least Jonathon seems to understand this site is satire. A small improvement from what we have had before.
May you be touched by His noodly appendage,
Spartan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to you, if one doesn’t believe in god, that makes them agnostic, because they do not know for sure. Am I right? Let me ask this, are you omniscient? Do you know for sure that god is real? No. That is where faith comes in. Since you don’t know for sure, you’re agnostic too. ;)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I absolutely agree with you! His Noodley Appendage reached out and created everything! You have renewed my faith in our flying creator! Thank you so much for laying out all this evidence for us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, I jst wrote a massive reply, then accidently hit backspace twice so my browser went to the previous page. Wow that sucked, it was like a lion stalking and killing it prey. So I will briefly sum it up for everyone;
.
Jonathon, I am sorry you wasted your time writng this whole thing, because it lack validity in everyway possible. And the worst part is yor smug, condencing tone!! If you were even a fraction of as smart as you think you are you would have seen, the flaws in everyone of your arguments.
I.E.
“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:______________________…”
.
Congratulation, you just proved that things that are designed have a designer. Yes, this is true but you would first have to prove that the universe was designed, to prove that the universe has a designer. This is called ‘Begging the question”. It’s a logic fallacy, and your letter is full of it.
“Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-This is possibly one of the best quotes from any hate-mail. Absolute gold!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cars have designers, as did the everything to do with Coke, but there is all kinds of material evidence for those things. Just like with His Noodly Goodness, I see his presence countless times in my colander. Faith does not equal reality. As for bananas, my lower colon would also fit them nicely…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So many errors in your quite random rambling statements here.
Your banana analogy is flawed since you’re talking about the domesticated version of a fruit manipulated to be as it is by man. Look at a wild banana and you’ll see that none of your claims remain.
Darwin and the eye is out of context but don’t take my word on it take the word of answers in genesis.”Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step”
Einstein used the word god as a literary device. He did not believe in a personal god and never made any effort to hide this fact…again from AiG “Using the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing.”
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement.” Ok but then there’s the fact that you can’t prove a negative, so then the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim of the existence of god. You can’t prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti monster, you can’t prove there’s no invisible pink unicorn and you can’t prove there is no celestial teapot.
I don’t need absolute knowledge to believe in a god I’d only need just a little bit of empirical evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would love to get into a discussion with you, but as a person who believes that our time is precious here, I don’t feel like repeating arguments that have been repeated again and again. I would reccomend for my views on the subject matter, Jonathon, that you go watch Inherit the Wind. If nothing else it will give you some culture.
At the end of the day your denial of evidence is just attack on proof, theories have been made, but those who have made them never said anyhting for certain. The weak argument states that things msut be, “just because”, and honestly all you fanatics seem to be just along those lines.
You make a mockery out of the gifts that you got randomly or maybe were given by trying to strip down ideas that have advanced so much for mankind.
Why can’t you take your fervor and apply it to something to better your fellow man, rather than attack him.
If you want more believers, you need to drop the torches and puritanical literalcy and peversions of Religion that caused so many problems in the past.
Put that in your aluminum can and design it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sigh. Ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
> 10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
I’m laughing so hard at that one that it is impossible for me to reply further in any detail. I will have to leave it up to those of you with more composure than I.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance of christians sometimes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.”
you are saying you have absolute knowledge that god is real, and that he is immortal and invisible? I would love to see evidence.
I’m not going to argue with you about all of your arguements, even though i just read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, and could easily cite it and he’d put you to shame. But i would like to say is that for all of the “chances” as you call them, you are substituting god for them. How can you say that god is an appropriate solution for these? What i see is that you see a gap in something, and instead of trying to think of a solution for the gap or to learn about the gap, you then substitute God. This just makes you appear to be either lazy or unintelligent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Further to my previous post –
.
“3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges?”
.
Exactly the same as them falling into the specific arrangement that they do actually fall into on any given attempt.
.
If your argument is that evolution could not hav occured because the odds against it are too hight then you are arguing that your ornages could not have fallen into the exact arrangement that they did fall in to.
.
Also – “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.”
.
You have just denied Jesus, who as the bible says, is God and Flesh and ascended bodily into Heaven, or are you picking and choosing what you believe to be true from the Bible?
.
You appear to be as full of self contradiction as is the Bible itself.
.
Drew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Further to my previous post –
.
“3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges?”
.
Exactly the same as them falling into the specific arrangement that they do actually fall into on any given attempt.
.
If your argument is that evolution could not hav occured because the odds against it are too hight then you are arguing that your ornages could not have fallen into the exact arrangement that they did fall in to.
.
Also – “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.”
.
You have just denied Jesus, who as the bible says, is God and Flesh and ascended bodily into Heaven, or are you picking and choosing what you believe to be true from the Bible?
.
You appear to be as full of self contradiction as is the Bible itself.
.
Drew
PS – your thing about the Banana (besides revealing a tendancy to Homo Eroticisim in your thought processes) is completely ludicrous!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How can you possibly consider the guidance of his omnipotent noodlyness to be an accident?
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GOLD!
whoo! first time first timer
wow, man, read a book (besides your bible.)
banana’s were selected to become the fruit we know today, possibly because of humans performing artificial selection, or breeding.
There is a perfectly logical sequence to the evolutionary formation of the eye:
-Cells became photoreceptive, and organisms could determine night from day. Humans have these basic photo-responsive cells behind our knees, as do many simple organisms.
-These cells bgan to form a cup shape, organisms could now sense movement. These cup-shaped photorecepters can be found in a distant relative, the flatworm.
-The cells became an enclosed sphere, as found in a natilus
-A water filled lens provides for clarity. this complete eye can be found in an organism you may have heard of… HUMANS
….If the eye is designed, why is is so fragile despite it’s obvious importance? People have blind-spots, can get floaters, the cornea can become scratched and detach from the inner eye, causing the cavity to fill with fluid and cause blindness.
It is totally true that the random formation of humans is unlikely, but the universe is a pretty big place. Why would so much exist outside of the earth if we were all designed and plopped here by some god? Every body in the universe would have formed life, had it been in the same unique and RARE position that the earth is in.
No one can declare that there is no gold in china with out knowing about china, but no one can say that there IS gold in china without finding some. You find me god, i’ll praise him.
By the way, atheists don’t say that there is no god, but they contend that without reasonable proof of god, god cannot be considered real. I can see that you like analogies, so here is one for you, Jonathon. I would love to believe that there is no one on my planet as ignorant as you, but, in reading this email, i have seen that there is at least someone as dumb as you because this letter is proof that you exist.
My computer works because of tangible electric signal and machines that process them. God is not a ‘computer wave,’ god is an idea. God exists, god is what stupid people call hope and how idiots explain what they don’t care to figure out.
Next time you try to make an argument against logic, try to leave out charles darwin, he was just one guy. you can’t expect him to figure out all of the mysteries of life all at once. In fact, he was a devout cristian and not the only one to theorize evolution by the time he published ‘The Origin of Species.’ And you are missing Peacocks from your anti evolution argument, darwin had some trouble with those too. He couldn’t fogure out why any animal with such poor camouflage could survive.
Basically, the colorful feathers on a male peacock give it no place to hide, therefore a male peacock must be strong and fast in order to support all those feathers and not be eaten. Big extravagant feathers=strong=sexy for all the lady peacocks
wake up, buddy, you are polluting the gene pool.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
P.S., in the words of Valentine Michael Smith: Thou Art God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sophistry, I say, sophism upon sophism. Did he just say that because you can not prove he does not exist, that proves his existence?
Hmmm…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you are a tosser
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon, normally I’m a rational person in response to hate mails, but your response is filled with too much holes. Allow me to demonstrate, EXACTLY the same way you did:
.
“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock.”
Incorrect. The Big Bang scattered all the currently-existing particles that were originally compressed in a single point. In another words, the Big Bang STARTED as “something” that exploded into a larger “something” of exactly the same mass and energy proportions. This suggests that the universe may have ALWAYS been been around, instead of having a beginning and an end.
.
Test 1, re-worded: The person who thinks the Coca Cola was created by an omnipotent creator other than man and his machines are:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
.
See where I’m getting? Coca Cola was made by a man. It has no connection with God what-so-ever.
.
More re-wording: The Banana: The Anti-Evolutionist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
.
1. is shaped for a monkey’s hand.
2. has a non-slip surface. Perfect for monkeys.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late. Monkeys, coincidentally, is one of the fewest species that actually sees colors.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper. Perfect for monkeys.
5. Is perforated on wrapper. Perfect for monkeys.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper. Perfect for ALL animals
7. Is shaped for the monkey’s mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry. Perfect for monkeys.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds. Including monkeys.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy. Perfect for monkeys.
11. Mankind commonly makes connections between bananas and monkeys more than humans to bananas.
.
By your theory, the banana was made for man AND monkey. -1 for thinking a banana was made ONLY for man; +1 for surprisingly deep connection between man and monkey.
.
“man can’t create anything from nothing”
As far as my knowledge (and this comes from my own observation and carefully tested research) goes, so hasn’t anything else. Not even the Big Bang.
.
“Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation – the human body.”
If you want to single out human kind as the most biologically complicated animal, you are deeply mistaken. Notice that an elephant is larger than we are, yet has a lot of organs common in humans, such as eyes. I can say a similar thing to rats, whom are smaller.
.
“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.”
Absolute bull. Tell me the actual calculations he used to calculate the probability, and I can point out to you all the ambiguous variables he took assumptions of.
And anyways, there’s plenty of time within 3.8 billion years for something as complicated as the human body to be formed by mere chance. I think it’s blasphemy to think the human body remained unchanged for 50 million generations. And Evolution is not only about chance: the theory uses natural selection for biased probabilities, creating a trial-and-error circumstance to a creature’s body.
.
“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.”
Wrong context. Einstein was arguing against Quantum Physics, which has very little to do with Evolution. The only connections the two has is that they’re both due to chance biased by the environment around them, and that Einstein could not disprove either.
.
“If man can not create the human eye…”
While man hasn’t made a human eye doesn’t mean they can’t. In fact, I want you to prove that we can’t.
.
Test 2, re-worded:
1. Do you know any building that a living creature did not make? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that a living creature did not paint? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that man a living creature not construct? Yes? No?
.
If you answered No to any of these, please give a reason why.
If that reason is because an omnipotent force made it, give us physical (not theoretical) evidence.
.
Answer to Test 3:
1. From the atom to the universe is there order?
The answer to this is No and Yes…respectively. Hear that? Atoms, shockingly, are not in order, but the universe is! You are talking about one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics: how is order achieved when everything in the smallest bits have no order. The answer from Quantum Physics is chance and probability, largely from forces of the environment. Einstein’s answer is, get this, “I don’t know”.
.
2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?
And to follow this up, “by accident”.
Test 4, my turn: What would I need to have the statement, “There is no end to prime numbers” to be true?
A. Absolute knowledge of every counting numbers
B. The Euclidean theorem
.
In mathematics, even if you can’t iterate through all the near-infinite number of counting numbers, you can still prove prime numbers has no end by a single proof. By the same token, science doesn’t require absolute knowledge of one subject to find it true (for example, water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen: proven).
.
“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?”
To find any proof, you need to start with a solid definition of God. Man doesn’t agree on these definitions of God (we’re proof). Since there’s no firm definition of god, there is no solid proof of him (equally, there isn’t a way to disprove god either). By your conclusion, we don’t have an ample amount of knowledge of God. This, consequently, is why we can’t prove him either, and that we never will. And by science, that makes God disposable as fiction.
.
Test 5, final re-wording: The man who sees a building and doesn’t know it was made by a physical being is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive. Like you.
.
In summary: all your rambling is about man making buildings. With high school knowledge of statistics, I can tell you boldly you should NOT extrapolate these facts to God making creatures, as they are irrelevant. It’s further noting that that there is a very large difference between buildings and creatures: creatures are alive, prone to mutation, and reproduce. Buildings does none of these.
Also, while we can’t prove god made creatures, we can (and did) proven that man can create creatures through cloning, genetic engineering, and other technologies. We may not be good at it, but by the definition of Creationism, humanity should qualify as creators themselves.
.
I am shocked that people has so much faith in things that is neither detectable nor observable. I am an animist, but I know I have the power to change the world without any undetectable force. You’re right in saying that I can’t experience the support of God the way you do. But that may be because I use sharp judgment over your flawed logic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
… and concerning the banana… just because something fits fairly well in your mouth, that doesn’t mean you should put it there,… to go a bit further, just because you think something doesn’t mean you have to say it… or in your case just because you read something somewhere doesn’t mean you have to cut and paste and vomit it all over a perfectly good website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree. The banana and the human eye was designed by someone. By who you ask? The Flying Spaghetti Monster of course!
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Orrrrrrrrrrr it could be that it doesn’t matter how improbable it is, all you need is for a replicator to arise once and life begins, which over the ~400 MILLION years it took for life to arise is pretty damn likely to happen at least once.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A compelling argument. A trifle verbose though. And as any soda pop afficianado knows, The bottle came before the can. On another note. FSMism is a parody religion. Primarily the point is to simply shove a sharp stick into the eye of organized religion. Christianity is far from being the first religion. Just ask any Hindu. Or a Wiccan. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Formed in Rome about 1300 years ago. There are in fact quite a lot of religions that are older than Christianity.
On another note, we’re not denying anything or anyones existence. We’re totally open to all ideas. Unlike you and your brethren. But maybe I’m wrong on that aspect. After all, you people seem to have absolutely no problem in going back and following someone who totally ripped off his followers and used the money for cocaine, hookers, adultery, well the list just seems to go on and on regarding Jim Bakker.
And now Christians are giving him money again! Yikes! The mind boggles! I’ll tell you this. If I wasn’t a moral person I’d start up a Christian church and suck every last dollar out of my followers without a qualm. I’d even sell tickets. Garenteed to preserve your soul or your money refunded. Only $5,000. Cash or money order only. No cheques.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow. Um. I’m not sure where to start, so I’ll just say two things that come to mind, then grab a beer in a bottle that the FSM has designed for easy consumption.
1. If we accept your argument, that a loving god designed all, then we also must accept that he designed the worm in Africa whose only means for survival are eating through a young boy’s eye, making him blind.
2. Yes. It is our LOGIC that is clouding our judgment.
Just because you type more words than most believers, doesn’t make your claims any less ridiculous.
God has given me a headache. I’m going to sleep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol, watch the video on it from fighting atheist, I believe. The banana is proof of evolution (through his devine noodliness) Look up what a wild banana looks like
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have just proved you have no concept what so ever of science. Also the entire concept of irriducable complexity is ridiculous… I would explain it to you in detail, but it requires some minor understanding of science which you don’t have.
Funny people like you curse science when it doesn’t fit what you want to believe, but then the second you are sick run to the doctor. Where exactly do you think that medication comes from, I’ll give you a hint- science. Where do you think thinks like plastic, cleanind solvents, paint, etc all comes from? And medication comes from understanding biology, and the EVOLUTION of biology. I realize it’s to much for you to grasp, go hide under your bible, you will never expand knowledge, we will do just fine with out you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
All of your writings are sophistry or the result of a gullible mind regurgitating specious positions. Whether it is the former or the latter will be evident in further postings of yours on this thread after your logic and information are exposed as faulty.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is the only religion that reconciles observation with scripture. So to preach our faith is reasonable – especially when it sarcastically illustrates the stupidity of yours.
On close examination all of your arguments are either the result of turning a blind eye to reality, or deliberate distortion. You must know that once explained, to continue advocating a view that is demonstrably false is perpetrating fraud Jonathon. Understand? -Fizzmick
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Congratulations, Jonathon, you have proven exactly the point of this website! At the end of your well thought out dissertation you state – “One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.” Even though I’m fairly confident that a lot of your reasoning concerning the facts for backing Intelligent Design will be severly questioned by fellow Pastafarians who are more well-versed than I in irreducible complexity and the evolutionary process in general, the above conclusion says it all. The bible DOESN”T work for us, and shouldn’t be taught as ID in science classrooms. I think even you would agree with that. If you don’t, then I must remind you that our delicious spaghedeity deserves just as much class time as the Xtian god (or any other god) as the intelligent (or unintelligent) designer. How arrogant to think that the god of the KJV bible is the only one worth consideration! I guess that’s “faith” for you. I’ll stick with the FSM Alrighty. Our gospel suggests that life is so much easier and more enjoyable if I do.
May the sauce be with you, Ramen
St. Arrrrgyle of A Sissy,
Pirate Saint of Gay Apparel, fa la la la la, la la la la
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t drink Coca Cola or eat bananas…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is a God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not a believer. 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.
.
Its the old fallacy of “We don’t know for sure, therefore my religion wins by default”.
Honestly, that argument is slightly worse than supporting your God’s existence by quoting random books.
.
There are many other things wrong with this post, but I’m sure they’ll be gone into by others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pardon me while I dismantle your 8th grade argument.
First of all, the Coco Cola argument is what we in the educated world call a “false analogy”. Specifically, the “watchmaker analogy.” I didnt even think of this one, its been around for a while. Apprently you missed that book in your vast research. The fact that Coca Cola and the universe are both intricate does not justify the assumption that both have similiar orgins. If you look up the watchmaker analogy, I dont expect to hear much of that from you ever again.
And now let us move into the realm of misquotes. Christians are really good at taking quotes out of context to prove a point. I see why, considering their lack of a point and desperate attempt at validation. You first quote by Darwin is actually commonly a common target of Chrisians, lacking the rest of the quote of course.
“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, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
You also comically quote George Gallup. How, exactly, is he any type of authority on the matter? Is it his role as a statistician or his Political Science degree? I could quote my mother if you’d like, she would have the same authority on the matter.
As for your “Test 2″, refer to my false analogy statement.
The third analogy is an easy target. 50 oranges falling into rows. Yea, probably pretty unlikely, unless you drop them, oh, lets say 10 trillion times. Do you think they would form 10 rows of 5 even once?
The person who thinks this arrangement would never come about is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
Funny if you are one of these three, because the latest science estimates around 10 trillion planetary systems. I would say the chances are pretty small that life would never come about even once.
Next is test 4. You really went into this one, wrote alot of stuff. But, alas, it was all in vain. It is based on a false premise, that we are athiests. You either did not read anything about FSM, or the entire concept went over your head. Smart money is on the latter if this posting is evidence of how much of this world actually goes over your head. FSM is not built on athiesm. I am not an athiest, but I do believe in the concepts of FSM.
Your conclusion is typical. Very one sided and built from a giant glass house. God is like computer waves? Computer waves are immortal and invisible? Yea, I have a question. What? I have yet to read an intelligent argument for intelligent design in this forum. They are full of circular logic, confirmation bias, misquotes, and now, false analogies.
I really hope to see a response from you, Jonathan, but I highly doubt I will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, a coke can and a building have their differences from a universe…but let’s proceed. Comparing not knowing if there is a god to not knowing if there’s a maker to a building is a pretty idiotic reflection. I know that a building was made by someone, but, then, by your logic (that everything that exists has a maker and designer) and by your mentioning of the banana (which, by the way, is designed to be eaten in order to propagate seeds, thus making it very likely it would be easily eaten) being proof of a god that makes things SPECIFICALLY to be pleasing to humans, because they are your god’s ultimate creation. However, if you’ve ever stumbled onto a nest of red ants, you’ll know they are NOT very pleasing to humans, and in fact, are downright bad. So, unless your god has an ulterior motive for making red ants, they shouldn’t exist, because even if the were designed, there is no use that SPECIFICALLY, they are useful to humans. One could argue that ants feed anteaters, which we can eat, but that still seems more like an anteater’s benefit. In response to your “circle of knowledge” we have never stated: If we were presented with irrefutable evidence to the existence of a divine being, we would slap that evidence in the face and walk away. Many of us are atheist or agnostic (or pastafarian) because we are WAITING for evidence to arrive. About your conclusion on the oranges: If you dropped 50 oranges infinitely, for billions of years, at an infinitely fast rate, eventually, they WOULD fall into rows, as it is with the billions-of years old universe forming and the millions of years old evolution forming us. About the eyes, there are fish with two pairs of eyes, and we have seen the second pair of eyes forming (via skeletal structure of the fish’s known direct ancestors.). Now, onto ulterior motive. What possible benefit do we get from denying your god? Our motive is that we’re sick of priests and their like telling us to believe blindly in things they cannot prove. In order for the Bible to work for you, you have to have blind faith in it, you have to accept the over 300 (count ‘em) errors in the bible. An your comparing everything to which there IS NO real explanation to man-made objects is just your sad way of trying to believe that, maybe, if you make a completely erroneous analogy, someone will be dumb enough to fall in line. Making statements with no value, and little meaning, and thinking they’re “deep” died out in biblical times, after a proliferation of them in a certain religious document. (hint: it’s related to “biblical”) So here’s a little test for you, my dim-witted friend.
1) The man who sees an entire universe, of which he knows very little, and wildly and fanatically points to a repeatedly disproven, historically inaccurate, hate-speech mongering book written by people too scared of the universe to try and understand it, and edited over so many years that even the one person of virtue is twisted beyond recognition, and claiming it is the answer is within this highest of scars in any history is
A) Intelligent
B)A complete fool
C) has an ulterior motive
2) The man who claims to already intimately know the ways and motives of any (if any) omnipotent beings is
A) a fool
B) An arrogant fool
C)Intelligent
Answer key 1: B for most, C for intelligent individuals
2: B
P.S. As for bananas being “pleasing to the taste buds”…I’ve never really liked them anyways.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your logic proving the existence of a God does not specify who, or what, the creator is. We believe it to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You believe it to be an old guy in the clouds.
And one question that always bothers me. What created God? Is it any less reasonable to suppose that God has always existed and always will than to think the Earth spontaneously came into being?
Could it be possible the “Christian” needs a security blanket because he is afraid of uncertainty?
And though I may disagree with you, I commend you for your literacy. Thank you, and may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The banana is “shaped for the human mouth”? Oh dear.. Someone ought to find him quick and tell him that not everything shaped like that should (necessarily) go in there. (Nevermind any other.. ah.. implications of that concept.)
It’s sad to me that five minutes on Google would find him sensible refutations to every single one of his “claims,” but he’d rather sit smugly in ignorance, thinking he has out-clevered us all. Besides, he somehow missed that no one here is claiming that there isn’t a designer – we’re just claiming He is a little noodlier than the creator described by Christianity. ;)
That said, I really think someone needs to make a “The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare” tee. I’d buy it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We should all applaud Jonathon’s quest to find real truth, but also pity him for his weak financial state. He’s clearly spent a lot of time researching creationist arguments, but apparently couldn’t afford any books newer than the late 1950s.
Hey buddy, here’s your first step to real knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think you’re preaching to the choir.
Did you not get the point that we do believe there is a God?
And that we believe, or in your words “have faith,” that He created everything with His noodly appendage?
See? We’re not so different.
Now do you get it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is quite an interesting post, it is brilliant and polite.
So let’s start with the banana thing, you seem to think that the banana was made for human use only, but you forget all other animals that might like it, monkeys are an easy one but why so many caracteristics. The shape… look at how they grow, it has the same shape as a penis … it’s just a gravity thing. The taste, the goal of a fruit is to dispere it’s seeds just as the goal of a flower is to spread pollen with bees, so it taste good to be eaten … but it is not in that order, there was probably 10000000 kinds of fruits and the one that survived was probably not those that tasted bad. The banana since it taste good for human and monkeys and other animals were eaten and the seed went out trought faeces and the plant was able to be chosen by the evolution.
Evolution is not a 1 chance on 1000 it is a 1 survivor VS 999 losers.
It is the same thing for the human body. Man it is a complex thing. But take a look on genetics, I can’t pretend to be a genius of some sort about that genes, but if there is 7 000 000 000 completely different ADN codes (7 000 000 winning combinations !) on earth at the time I write this word for you and that the earth is someting like 250 000 000 000 years old, that means that there was already a big deal of different adn codes before the human body was completed…. or even started to change. If human was able to create the chihuahua in 50 years by selecting the dogs that would reproduce themselves only by their phenotypes, imagine how many genes were not selected (because their owner could not reproduce) in that period of time… so even if the human eye is pretty complex, it doesn’t mean that it was created by something more intelligent… Fire or thunder are pretty weird and complex things… and still you wouldn’t say that it’s god that produce each lightening as Thor would do !
Honestly I don’t really understand the orange analogy, of course the chance that 50 orange falls to the ground in 5 lines is pretty weird. But what do you observe in natural life is so organised ? Trees ? I don’t think that there is such thing except snowflakes… but still no snowflakes has a clone….. so I don’t think that gods owns a snowflakes factory… and still there is somewhere an atomic solution to that weird crystalisation thing…
About China, you are right, you have to be sure to make a statement like there is no gold in china… but you also need full knowledge of China to pretend that there Gold is the source of China. By saying that god created the world and the human, you (generic you) are using an absolute statement so are you sure that there is one provable tangible concrete proof that someone created Adam ?
Here in quebec there is such a thing as a building without builder. It’s called the roché Percé and there is also the caves of the Machu Pichu. Those things have been built by erosion. There is also the icebergs that we could see as buildings without intelligent architects. And if you are searching for a nice painting created by genes, just look at two parrots, or the butterflies, a zebra. After you take a look at these remember what i wrote about the banana and the strategic advantage that these phenotypes gives.
Still I really like your way of thinking, peaceful and intelligent and I think you are right on the last part, take what you need in the bible. But you must remember that this movement is not an anti-god or atheist movement. The fer de lance, of the FSM church is to promote Scientific explanation instead of religious obscurantism. And this I am sure that you would agree with me is a nice goal. Because if there is something god would want us to know, it is how to help to build it’s garden/kingdom, for this we have to learn on what he did / how nature works. I am an agnostic pagan/desillusioned catholic and if there is a force out there it surely wouldn’t deny us knowledge if knowledge is for a Good use.
See ya !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
Mankind typically subjects phenomenon beyond our current understanding with discretion and scrutiny. Your answer for the ‘reason’ why the human 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” is that its the result of an “eternal spirit” is foolish. As you profess, there are plenty of things beyond our current understanding. It is logical and statistical and thus reasonable that humans lack full comprehension of all subjects. You should not collapse into a pile and call it the result of a spirit. Moreover, citations from ‘really smart guys’ to support an argument is a logical fallacy and an easy way out. Otherwise, thanks for a very nice and thoughtful posting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bananas were not designed by cosmic intervention, but by humans. Bananas are one of the first fruits domesticated and cultivated by human beings a little more than 7000 years ago. Humans have bred bananas selectively for smaller seeds and a tastier banana, in much the same way we have cultivated seedless grapes and watermelons.
The other arguments are just as senseless.
I could argue just as easily that unicorns exist because they really created everything, not an invisible man in the sky. The only reason I could argue this with you, is the complete lack of critical thought behind any of your arguments. Any intelligent person would laugh… at everything you have to say on the subject.
Let’s make this clear. -There is no evidence for the existence of a god-
Spirits, gods, unicorns, leprechauns, faeries, santa clause, and the easter bunny are all examples of fiction. All have the exact same chance of existing.
My ‘good judgment’ doesn’t come from a 2,000 year old book. My ‘good judgment’ doesn’t involve going to *christian*(read: moron) sites arguing my point of view. My ‘good judgment’ doesn’t involve groundless arguments hashed over by a group of people called ‘apologists’. My ‘good judgment’ doesn’t involve fairy tales of bearded, violent, lying old men in the sky.
If I were you, I’d stick with arguing your point to other deluded lunatics.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course the Banana was designed by our lord the FSM. I mean, just becuase /wild bananas/ don’t look anything like the ones that have been bred using artificial selection, that doesn’t mean that FSM didn’t spontaneously make them that way…I mean, that’s science. Who cares about /science/?
And I like your analogy to inanimate objects as life forms. Coca cola cans are, like organisms, found in the wild, reproduce, have genetic variation, are millions of years old, share homogenous structures with other organisms, have vestigal organs, and of course, are subject to the pressure of the natural environment.
And yes, those silly evolutionists, thinking that Darwin was right. I mean, to them Darwin was a prophet…again, never mind the fact that the EVILutionists don’t subscribe to every part of his ideas, such as the origin of whales, as they base science on evidence instead of faith in someone. No, please close your ears and mind to that fact. In fact, close your ears and mind to ALL biology!
And yes, of course the evil theory of evolution works just in the way you described. Everything happening at once, instead of, over millions of years, different parts and phenotypes being present in organisms, which, if fit to their environment, survive. Thank you for your obviously well-researched view of how evolution works–er, doesn’t work.
This is why the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is so important to us. Do you see now, how we should all forget every piece of science pointing to evolution (which is all of it in the life science)–no, we should all try to minimize our understanding of this world and subscribe to Pastafarianism. Do you have any proof there’s no FSM? Even if you did; we can’t trust you–you don’t know everything in the universe! Do you believe in spherical cubes? You must be agnostic to spherical cubes, for even if you are the leading scientist in the world of math and physics, you still have limited knowledge.
So thank you for your lovely support of Pastafarianism. Perhaps one day we can propagate faith in Intelligent Falling, as well, instead of that silly old theory of gravity. Spread the word that your Noodly Master, (who does have complete knowledge!) is watching. :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay… the whole banana point shows either you don’t understand the concept of parallel evolution or are simply misinformed. Additionally, you’ll note that the human mind is exceedingly good at finding patterns (such as evidence of design), even where none necessarily exist. It’s a convenient, simple answer to say that the world is designed because it looks that way, but if one looks hard enough for evidence of a pattern with the expectation of finding it, one will be certain of finding it. In other words, it’s ironic when Yahweh says in the Bible that if you seek him with all your heart, you’ll find him, because it’s true. That doesn’t make Yahweh real, though. Preconception is often the difference between good science and bad science. Finally, some of the arguments you’ve made come from a particular evangelism course (”The Way of the Master”), the sole strong point of which is to play on people’s deepest insecurities to scare them into Christianity. These arguments are designed for soft targets who cannot deal with these insecurities on their own, but as such, the arguments will not be effective in convincing an educated person. Thank you for your time and for your civility, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thank you, jonathon, for your useful contribution.
it would seem that the greatest misunderstanding is that this is a site for atheists – it isn’t, it’s for Pastafarians.
another misunderstanding which is held widely is that God is a “person” – clearly God isn’t a person, and we can read about that in the Bible (many people who do read the Bible don’t read the whole book).
my recommendation to all is to read Marcel Proust’s great work – many timeless truths are hidden in its pages, and it would make a great foundation for a religion, a great companion to Pastafarianism.
peace and love to all
RAmen
x
.michael.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You completely missunderstand the concept of evolution. Only Xtians, orthodox Jews, Muslims or Morons like you cannot understand evolution. Get yourself educated. Btw, it needs a lot of mathematics, physics, chemistry and computer science to build a computer and its software. Faith is not needed, believe me ;) The bible does not work and this is good so. Anyway, explain me who created the creator, designed the designer? And it’s creator/designer? And so on. The concept of a god does explain nothing. Become a pastafarian, eat spaghetti and be happy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hehehehehehehehehe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hahahahahaha
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tripe anyone?
.
There’s one thing that I always wondered about the banana-theory, and I use the term theory loosely, very loosely, what about the pineapple?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do not understand if he is saying that the universe is a can of Coke? I started getting excited when he was talking of aluminum and brown liquid – I thought he was going to talk about a steaming pot of a most delicious spaghetti sauce.
If I may add to the miracle of the banana and perhaps wax a wee chauvinistic, it is also very pleasing to watch a hot girl eat a banana. mmmmmmmm…
It is precisely these same fallacious arguments that I use to strengthen my belief in FSM. Every tasty plate of spaghetti must have a designer. He who does not eat a yummy plate of spaghetti when it is before him is:
A. A fool.
B. Has an ulterior motive.
C. Not intelligent.
May I suggest the disciples of Jesus and the pirates of Flying Spaghetti Monster unite against the real affront to Him on this Earth (Kraft Macaroni and Cheese)?
Rah-men
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree it’s wrong to say there’s absolutely no God, but aren’t you saying there’s absolutely no evolution? You can’t know for a fact that evolution didn’t happen. You being just as irrational as any atheist.
Darwin is not our leader and is not infallible. Just because he had doubts about the evolution of the eye doesn’t mean all supporters of evolution must blindly (no pun intended) believe what he does.
There are millions of species of plants and we only eat a few. We can pick the most convient ones from a huge variety.
Also, if the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were, hypothetically, a satire and a parody, it wouldn’t be anti-God, it would be anti-’teaching intelligent design as science’.
Good approach though, most of the hate mail is irrational babbling and threats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0