“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”
Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-Jonathon
*
Rarely have I seen such misuse of the term logic.
Dear Jonathan, please go back to school or a library and read a few real books. Not AiG crap. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree it’s wrong to say there’s absolutely no God, but aren’t you saying there absolutely can’t be evolution? To make that claim would make you 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 evoltion must blindly (no pun intended) believe what he does.
There are millions of species of plants and only we eat a few. We can pick the most convenient ones from a huge variety.
Einstein did believe in God, just not in the normal sense. He saw God as a collection of all the scientific laws and rules.
Also, if the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were, hypothetically, a satire and a parody religion, it would not be anti-God, it would be anti-’teaching intelligent design as science’.
Good approach with the thought out argument though. Most of the hate mail is irrational babbling and threats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lmao the banana:
That is a wild banana:
http://www.dasmirnov.net/media/users/paul/PBF_02_3_image_04_full.jpg
.
I know another object, part of human body, that has a shape that can be compared to that of a banana that is also shaped for human hand and mouth. Anyway you get where i am heading too, and if you dont, then you are probably dont want to know.
.
So who created god?
.
So where is your proof for your god? If you havent noticed, this site is about the flying spaghetti monster. We believe that the holy FSM created everything. You havent said anything to proof it was your god and not the FSM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good points. One thing though: it is FSM that did all that, not God. To state that there is no FSM and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one. Thanks for stopping by though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That all applies to the FSM as well. Also, you spelt your name wrong: JonathAn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
how long did it take you to write that fuckin long ass hate-mail. no one is going to take the time to read your shit. you must be some fatass to spend te time to write that much shit about a topic you hate. if you dont believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then go fuck your mom cause nobody cares. did i mention that no one is going to rea your stupid ass shit that waste up a page of crap?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I doubt anyone will read this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, you are right, it is better to worship a zombie jewish carpenter, who will grant you eternal life if you eat his flesh and blood. And the god fellow is somewhat contradicting himself: Don’t you guys down there sin, although I made you in such a way that you find the irresistible urge to sin, therefore I want all of you to go to hell, although I love you all.
The person who creates something, only to gloat about it’s misfortune is:
A) Sadist
B) Loonie
C) He did not create it, just someone told you he created it.
Oh, and which of the wide variety of gods are you refering to? The Jehovists version of god, the jewish version, Christian (and if so, of which version of christianity) version of god – the one that the jews had but had a change of his eternal mind, Universe peoples version of god, Cthulhu, Azatoth, FSM, muslim version of god…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Banana is also perfectly shaped for your ass, maybe you should think about what you “intelligent” person should do with it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are missing a few points here, Jonathon. One of them has something to do with the expression ‘it happened by chance or accident’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First time posting, I’m a semi-recent convert – I hope I do my fellow Pastafarians proud. ^^
First off, the banana is also eaten by other animals, monkeys and elephants for example, so to say it’s formed for us is like saying it is formed for the other animals too. The banana is a fruit, therefore is a part of the tree’s lifecycle, it’s design is that when it drops on the ground the seeds feed off the fruit’s flesh and start placing roots thus continuing it’s existance. It is therefore nesessary to be biodegradeable for instance. Besides, honestly, what isn’t bio-degradable in nature, especially among living things. >.> The subjective ‘facts’ namely taste and shape would be more a product of our evolution, if the banana were a main part of our diet.
The eye: I remember having this discussion with my highschool science teacher once >.>. Anyway, it could have evolved from say, something like a flatworm’s eye something that detects only light and dark then maybe something that sees movement to shapes. A lot of our sight is not a function of the eyes so much as the section of the brain that interperts the signals it gets. Those creatures that have more simple body structures also tend to have short lifecycles, along many more advantagous developments to develop over a set period of time.
Sidenote: why qoute ‘famous’ people? It seems rather trite. After all, many people say many things and there can be and are qoutes for everything.
Order and chaos are functions of our mind. Our brain recognized patterns even when there are really none, shapes in clouds for example. And to call out any specific pattern for the ‘oranges’ the chances are going to be astronomically low, even if it’s a random pattern as opposed to an ordered one. You can however, predict where the oranges will land given an understanding of physics, the materials involved and a hugely vast amount of time.
To declare that there is 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: “All gold is in China.”
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 all gold is in China.
Likewise; to state that there is God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there is 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 not indeed exist?
To ‘in summary’: However, the collective knowledge of humanity knows how every single thing we use in daily life is made and how it works, regardless of if we do. It is not faith. If the computer is not on, I do not pray that to turn it on – that’s just silly. I check components starting simply (say, ‘Is the power on?’and moving into the more complex and if my knowlegde is not enough there are others that are trained to deal with it.
“One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.”
Wouldn’t something that’s filled with condictions especially went applied to the real world, notably on the top of my mind ‘Thou shall not kill’ vs the Crusades, be considered to not be working? Secondly, that’s exactly what I did, yet you decry my beliefs, shame on you for judging others. ‘He who is not guilty cast the first stone’ ring a bell?
Seriously though, did I go to your church’s website and try to denounce your faith with ‘evidence’? No, but perhaps you would like me to. ‘Treat others as you wish to be treated’, isn’t that a moral of some story in your sacred text? If not, it’s good common sense. Respect our faith, if finding it rediculously silly and be done with it. Simple.
Have a nice life. =P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To declare that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “The Romans had wireless internet.”
Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of Rome and wireless internet?
B. Partial knowledge of Rome and wireless internet?
C. Absolute knowledge of Rome and wireless internet?
“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that wireless internet was not found in Rome’s ruins.
Likewise; to state that there is no FSM 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 the FSM 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 FSM.” In other words, you don’t know if the FSM exists, so you are not Touched by his Noodliness. You are in denial. You are like a person that looks at a Pirate and says that the world isn’t warming up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Research: the moron’s worst nightmare.
The Banana fallacy, as ‘t is called, talks about the banana – the Cavendish banana. The Banana has a history of about 8000 years of cultivation – it has a designer, namely Papua farmers. If you ever see a wild banana, YOU would be the one with nightmares. It’s big, has a tough skin, has big seeds. The Bible does not explain why He would create such a disgusting and unhandy fruit. Pastafarianism does: He was drunk.
And Oh Noes, not the Darwin and the Eye quotemine AGAIN. Even AIG is fed up with this one. Try reading the lines that follow it.
Everything has a creator, Jonathon. Even your article: it was created by someone else (or likely even more than one) and you copy-pasted it here without second thought. What’s your point other than showing you completely lack any knowledge on biology, astrology, geology and the scientific method?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Firstly, I’d like to thank the author from refraining from using words similar to 1337, LOL etc. and showing that they no only know how to write in sentances, but also how to structure an argument :D
However, here’s my reply.
I won’t deny that a coca-cola can came about by chance. Thats obvious enough – it was made in a factory! However, since you are referring to the gradual rise of life, then evolution seems to cover all the corners in terms of this.
The big mistake people seem to make is referring to evolution as “Blind chance”. It isn’t. It’s much more than that. Yes, chance has an minute effect on it, but that effect is negligable. What is important is how the small chances, such as, say, having a slightly better immune system, are saved – if the new feature isn’t useful, it will tend to cause the organisms it is present in to die out. If it is useful, they will tend to survive. So, overall, organisms which are better adapted to survive, through chance mutations, survive. Then THOSE animals develop chance mutations, which make them better, but the odds of them getting to that stage from their starting point (a better-than-average organism) is much more likely than from their original starting point (an average animal). Obviously this can be taken much, much further, and we end up with life today. If you can’t see how there is enough time for this to happen, think how long a century is. The earth is 460,000 centuries old (and has had life for about 360,000 centuries). Plenty of time, don’t you think?
The banana argument can also easily be used to support evolution – originally, the banana would have been used to transport seeds, like all other fruit. Anything which made the banana more appetising would have been useful, and so the features you quoted would have evolved! (Think about it – the tress which have bananas which are more likely to be eaten are more likely to have offspring).
I don’t know the evolution of the eye off hand, but im sure it can’t be too difficult to find.
Yes, Darwin did write that. But he then went on, through the rest of the chapter, to show how the eye could come into being. It’s a quote taken out of context! (Im my opinion, worse than a misquote…)
I Don’t know about the other quotes, but they are quite possible taken out of context too.
You argue that without full knowlegde of the universe you can’t prove there isn’t a God. That argument works both ways – can’t prove there is a god either. As an athiest *cough* i mean pastafarian…i have looked at the evidence and decided that there seems to be no need for a God. Yes, we don’t know everything, but how can you argue that a god exists form that? It seems more likely that we could never understand how the universe started, than there was a God to start it.
And i find theif/policeman analogy quite insulting. I really, really do. it kinda let the tone down of a well written argument. But at least you put more effort into this than the other people who write hate mail/concernd criticism…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That was long!! Without capital letters? Without cursing? It seems -only seems- to be rational! And it’s more correct grammatically than will be my answer
–
“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock…” Well, how it sounds to you:
“6000 years ago a God created the world. He was in heaven -where is heaven? Mont Olympus? Above us? In a satellite? He was surrounded by angels – fairy-like and without sex, boring- who didn’t have free will -wait! one of them was send to hell for weanting to be like god. So he created the man -he get bored in less than a week?- and woman from a man’s rib. He loves mankind, but he insists in killing them… he demands to worship him…”
Given these two options, I think the first is more probable
–
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Of course not! The banana was designed for God to be used like a primitive dildo…humorous! Do you know that other bananas are smaller and aren’t shaped for the human hand?So the perfect designer needed to improve his design…
–
“To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can” – Evolution is not an accident! Is probability and survival!
–
The eye “problem” was explained in terms of evolution by Charles Darwin in the same book you are quoting, 2 centuries ago… but the IDiots are still explaining this “problem”
–
“If I could prove God statistically”
A free advice: if you don’t know a word about statistics -the example with the oranges was a good laugh- don’t try to use it.
I saw that example: try to get all the telefon numbers of all the people that won the lottery in any state of USA for the last ten years, order it for date and state. The chance to get this secuence of numbers is very close to 0, so God is playing with the lotttery…
–
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement”
Well, we are not saying that we are sure that there is no god, but we don’t need them to explain the evolution. In fact, the existence of your God ant the ID is as plausible as the FSM ant the Unintelligent Design, may His noddly appendage touch you.
–
” If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.””
I admit that more or less: “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I don’t have any scientific reason to believe that there is A God”. Can you see the difference?
–
In summary, I agree with you: My computer is magic! Inside my monitor is a Dwarf painting the words, reading it directly from my mind…
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where do you start to reply to this? I’ll pick a couple of points.
.
Your computer analogy is wrong. The step of faith would be switching on the world’s only computer every morning hoping it would work, because somebody assured you it once worked two thousand years ago. The “computer waves” are observable those who understand computers.
.
The banana seems to me to indicate the exact opposite of what you suggest. As a piece of design it is rubbish — a fruit with no seeds. It has evolved from a functional, but difficult to eat, fruit. Not in this case by natural selection, but (like most modern food crops) by selective breeding over thousands of years. By sowing seeds only from the plants with the largest proportion of defective (i.e. seedless) fruits, and has designed the banana. You have no doubt seen the creationist video of your banana story. It is so good that when I first saw it I assumed it was a comedy sketch. I am sure I will be one of many linking to this, but check out the debunk youtube video at:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As for the eye, the evolutionary line is pretty clear:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyes.gif
As you can see, one eye in the row could easily have evolved from its more simple predecessor; the simplest being a spot of light-absorbing molecules as present in some bacteria. But I agree, the whole process may have well been pushed forward a little bit by His Noodly Appendages, just to bring fashionable eye patches into existence in due (evolutionary) time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hahahaha I hope we don’t really need to explain this :p It is his noodlyness who has created this – notice, the banana is in shape with a foreshortened appendage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Atheist’s Nighmare:
Yellow Bananas as we know them today have been selectively bred by farmers over many generations; bananas that are natural look very different and do not have many of the characteristics that are mentioned in that article. Bananas have not always been how they are described in that article.
The same is true of things like carrots – natural carrots can be a variety of colours – orange carrots we know well today were selectively bred for by dutch farmers.
“Orange-coloured carrots appear in the Netherlands in the 17th century. The Dutch were the first to make the orange carrot. They Dutch made the orange carrot to be less bitter than the yellow varieties.” – Wiki
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jonathon (thon?)
How is it that you religious people are never able to see beyond your own prejudice and are always trying to fit everybody else into your narrow frames of mind?
.
You got everithing wrong:
.
-nothing happens by chance or by accident but an almighty maker is not the only alternative;
.
-the banana example proves nothing: think about the coconut, or the pineapple;
.
-the Darwin quote on the eye is accurate but truncated: it goes on “however…” and it explains how the eye was indeed formed by evolution and natural selection;
.
-Einstein’s quote is neither confusing nor contradictory. His “spirit” can mean lots of different things and we know for sure that it is not supposed to mean any sort of god;
.
-I do not know the odds for 50 oranges falling in 5 rows of ten but I know that it is higher than zero, therefore, if you try long enough it is a certitude that it will happen. If you find this mind boggling it is because your mind is very easily boggled;
.
-Nobody declares that there is no God, we only declare that many people have been searching for gold in China for a long time and to the date have found no evidence that there might be some;
.
-in summary you are confusing faith with experience: my experience makes me expect that the computer will work when I turn it on (I am however prepared to find out that sometimes it might not be the case) while your faith tells you that a God exists despite the experience of the entire humanity to the contrary.
.
Do you agree that you got it all wrong?
.
Or do you have an ulterior motive?
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t sleep!! Bananas will eat me!!!!!!
.
St John the Blasphemist
Saint of Gastronomical Nightmares
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear. The banana thing. Creationists and fruit again. It’s testament (no pun intended) to the poor reasoning of ID that none of the features of a banana described preclude the banana evolving so that other primates (yes, monkeys and apes can peel bananas too!) could spread banana seeds. Yes, wild bananas have seeds even if the ones in a supermarket don’t. Perhaps a knowledge of biology that extended beyond what can be found on a grocery store shelf would help this guy’s comprehension of evolution.
Also, none of the features described are absolutely unique to the banana. Analogues and homologues of these characteristics are seen in other fruits and berries – exactly as would be expected from characteristics that have arisen through evolutionary processes! The banana teleology falls flat for the same reasons that the old chestnut about bacterial flagella does (trust me, I have a PhD in microbiology).
And now oranges. Oranges! The new weapon in Creationisms War on Reason (or is that just in Florida). Yes, it is extremely unlikely that 50 oranges would fall into 10 rows of 5. But if oranges that were in the correct positions were kept and the ones that were not were discarded, and then another 50 were dropped, and then this process was repeated again and again and again, you WOULD end up with 10 rows of 5 eventually. That is because this process would be SELECTIVE rather than totally random, in the way that evolution works through natural selection. The difference being that natural selection is not an intervention by a celestial orange sorter, but an inevitable consequence of competition for finite resources.
It’s amusing, though, to see this person use the “no gold in China” argument deployed by Dawkins in “The God Delusion”. Here however, a typical Creationist attempt to move the goal posts by trying to change the meanings of words (in this case “atheist” and “agnostic”) is supposed to turn this argument around. It does not, of course. While a hypothetical person who states that they “know” there is no god would be termed a “strong atheist”, an atheist is simply someone who does not BELIEVE in a god. An atheist is in almost every case is not a strong atheist but someone who states simply that “while there may be a god or gods, on the basis of all of the available evidence, it does not seem remotely likely that there is”. An agnostic says “I just don’t know.” These are FUNDAMENTALLY (again, no pun intended) different viewpoints.
I do agree with the last point, however. I DO have an ulterior motive. I am a biologist. A scientist. My motive is to learn about how living things work, to learn the TRUTH about life and the universe around it based on evidence, reason and experimentation. If evidence and reason told me there was a bearded misogynist in the sky who farted the world into existence, then I would believe that. But it does not. So I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s the most brilliant proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real I’ve ever seen! Now bow before our noodly master!
Along with a banana that He made so perfect it only took humans 10000 years of selective breeding to make it as large, seedless and tasty as it is today. What was He thinking? And we actually tampered with the banana’s ability to defend itself against parasites, which is a problem if we want bananas to ever grow in the wild again. (this directly from http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0719-02.htm).
Since a pineapple is clearly unintelligent design, as anyone who ever tried to open one will testify, we can but assume that He was really drunk when designing it. Which further confirms that FSM is indeed the Creator, as no other Creator deity was ever portrayed drunk.
Praised be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creator of strange fruit!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should this post have been posted on an atheist website?
We here believe, that in the beginning, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything,
but just as some painter designed the Mona Lisa and forgot the eyebrows,
and Americans invented mass produced cars,
then shortly after gave up updating the designs,
he created the sauce of everything and left it to be developed, or to rot?
But like the painter of the Mona Lisa he will not come back to correct his mistakes,
but he left a paint pot.
Roy
Ps.
If it helps you can even pray to the FSM with exactly the same results as to praying to anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A lot of your statements seem to imply that if God didn’t create everything, then everything must have been caused by random chance.
This argument is often used by people who deny evolution – for example, with the watch argument (If you put all the parts of a watch in a bag and shake it, what are the chances that it would form a working watch? Somehow some people think this also works with evolution). Arguments like these are not valid – watches parts are neithing living, nor can they evolve.
Recently, I saw an experiment someone did with a simple piece of coding, where watch parts randomly grouped together. The ones that were more like functioning watches were the only ones that managed to survive (instead of survival of the fittest, it was survival of the ones most like watches) and thus, the only ones to reproduce, and over time they evolved from simple pendulums to fully functioning watches.
Make of it what you will – it seemed fairly trustworthy, but it could have been a hoax. A lot of arguments that are used to show how things could only have reached how they are today if there was a diety seem to assume that any other way is purely by chance – which it isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jonathan,
I applaud your convictions. You truly believe yourself and your attempts to prove them. However, comparing inanimate objects and their creators (paintings, buildings), to the evolution of biology is not like comparing apples to apples, it is like comparing apples to cities. No comparrison. When I turn my computer on I don’t know how it works, but somebody does. When I see examples of evolution I don’t fully understand it but somebody does and is understanding it more everyday.
If you choose to close your mind to research, learning, and full, although complicated, explanations of the world we live in then that is your choice to make.
I for one will never allow anyone to tell me “it’s that way because something I have no proof of made it that way and if you don’t believe me that something will punish you.”
Sounds like persuasion by use of fear to me and I’ll have no part of it.
RAmen!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to say, Jonathon you are possibly one of the most intelligent “Hate mail” senders I have had the honor of reading. Of course you are trying to show us the “light” and the error of our ways but none-the-less.
Good points.
Thought, shouldn’t logic decide our judgment?
Instead of taking a snakebite victim to the hospital should we just pray for them to become well, although no one has survived the venom before without treatment?
Should we put faith in place of logic and judgment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An actual well-thought out argument.
.
First off, I would like to congradulate Jonathon on his letter. I believe that it was well organized and very well argued. Applause all around.
.
Now I would like to point something out to Jonathon.
.
We are not necessarily atheists; I myself, like you said, am an agnostic because I do not believe in the establishment of religion. I am, however, quite spiritual. Praises to his Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
.
Jonathon, please note that the FSM and pastafarianism are not are way to disprove the existence of a god; but rather to point out the flaws in your own christain views. It is satire designed to poke fun at intelligent design; like you said, “The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.”. But what are the odds that there is an omnipotent and omniscient being in a place that is pure bliss and happiness and all that he(I say he because that is how the patriarchy of Christianity refers to it)does is watch every single thing we do? The odds are mind-boggling.
.
I’d rather take my chances with the oranges falling in to ten rows of five; odds and probability say that it is bound to happen eventually.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pushed the button before I was ready.
.
At least you know for a FACT that the oranges will eventually fall into their rows. Can you say you know for a fact that god exists? You couldn’t unless you were omnipotent. And if you were, that would make you god, wouldn’t it? And for some crazy reason, I don’t think that you are god.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good arguments, though I admit I only scanned a lot of it. But your own point is that it’s faith. ID is faith. It shouldn’t be taught as science.
Gonna go get a banana…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree 100% with everything you have posted, Jonathon. We all know that the universe is created. It is only the manipulations of that supreme being’s noodly appendage that makes it seem to be otherwise. But we are arguing over which intelligent designer it is. As the name of the theory is INTELLIGENT design, I would postulate it is the being that knows enough about M-string theory, carbon isotope ratios, biology, chemistry, genetics, astrophysics, geology, and every single other scientific field to utterly confound them, and set up a iron-clad chain of logics among all fields that support each other. I don’t remember what bible verse it is that claims it. I know it is in the Gospel, though.
Were I to use a atheist, pro-science viewpoint to pick apart your arguments (which I’m going to guess you are copying verbatum from the flyer I found on the bus a couple of months back.) it would look something like this:
1) Your Coca-Cola theory would be perfectly valid in a seriation. In a world where thousands of similar cans, perhaps one is blue and white, perhaps one reads ‘Coca-Kola’, but the important thing when remembering the “Watchmaker” fallacy is context. Sure, a coke can, or watch, out in the middle of a forest is an abberation. In the middle of a pile of cans or a wall of watches, it is a commonality.
2) The banana? Did you just take that from a ID website, or from one of those flyers they ‘hide’ on the back of buses? At least you didn’t trot out the old “Carbon Dating is wrong!” argument. To deflate your banana argument, I’d just like to ask: What major civilizations are based upon this wondrous fruit? Certainly the Greeks and Romans… No? How about the Kingdom of David… Not domesticated yet. Huh. Egypt? Happarapa? Mesopotamia? Olmec? Maya? Zu Dynasty? None of them? God made this perfect food for humans, then made it so that it was finicky and would only grow in very limited places, then didn’t even see fit to give this divine gift onto any of the civilizations. Sounds like the Banana is well designed, but the creator doesn’t have the slightest clue about distribution.
3) The coke can again. Hey, I got a question for all the “GOD DOES EVERYTHING” crowd. If He is so amazing, why does He reuse so many parts? Your average Sci-fi hack can come up with a dozen creatures more unique then anything found here on Earth, yet just about every Cordade has a pair of eyes, almost identical. Speaking of eyes, why is it that all the IDers always forget that eyeballs didn’t evolve once on earth, but TWICE. God flexing his design Intelligence by using the exact same design yet again? What about flight? That managed to pop up twice in identical fashion among two animals who have no real similarities. Echolocation? Again, at least twice, and that is at least as complex as an eyeball. If you look, again and again, you see animals and plants filling the same nitches (’guilds’) in different ecosystems in identical ways. Even if they are on opposite sides of the world, they manage to come to the same conclusion. Ostriches, Emus and Rheas? Africa, South America, and Australia. They can’t fly, so how did they get there? On the backs of coconuts?
4) Your test #2 is inherently flawed. Unless you are saying that GOD built buildings… Even evengelical Pastafarians don’t claim that. A mountain, a tree and a midget, sure, but buildings?
5) Test 3 is laughably flawed. Otherwise we would accurately predict the weather, earthquakes, and gambling would never been invented. Chemistry and medicine would work 100% of the time with 100% of the people. Speaking of people, you wouldn’t have any. Most biologic functions require a bit of inefficiency to protect them from unbalancing. To say nothing about how genes are passed on. Chaos and disorder is everywhere, especially if you pass the Heinsberg limit.
6) Your test #4 suffers from the fact that nobody in the group you are trying to demolish has ever said there is no god, outside of the rants of certain priests. The official scientific position is “Not enough evidence” This is what is known as a “Straw man” in common vulgate. It would be like if I said “Why do all Christians hate bricks?” No matter how you answer this accusation, you are acknowledging the fact that it is based upon, that Christians hate bricks.
7) God is building buildings again? Tell him to knock it off. The housing market is oversaturated, and the market is crashing.
A long list of straw men. Probably the same arguements were used back in the Renasance, and still failed to do anything but inspire the faithful.
So thank you Jonathon, you have inspired me. Truely He is great in all things, and in his Noodly Wisdom has created all things around us and made them Good. I especially like the bananas. They should become a holy meal for a religion. Ours already has one, but I think Christianity could use some bananas. They have lots of fiber in them, helps you clean out your system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
tl;dr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh how i love how these people think they can prove God exists by trying to prove how statistically improbable it is that we exist, or how it is impossible for us to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Here goes:
Test 1:
A banana is a fruit and the simple fact is that the chances of one edible object fitting into some random blueprint for a perfect edible product is extremely high. People love to eat Lobster, but is it a lot harder to eat, does this mean that we are not supposed to eat it, or that God does not in fact exist because not all edible objects are made easy for us to eat. (I would also like to point out that most of us eat Bananas the wrong way… look it up on Google… the so called tab to open it is in fact the wrong side to open it on).
Test 2:
Yes, a cave has no builder and yet there are many caves that are quite habitable. The fact that we chose to improve on on our environment is our own choice. In fact i would go as far as to say if god does exist then he did not build us very nice houses.
Test 3:
It is highly unlikely, but not impossible, the pure fact that it only happens once in a million times does not mean that it will never happen, in fact if you do it a million times a day for a million years it will happen at least once a day.
Test 4:
Flip this argument over, to state that there is a god is an absolute statement… follow on from there… this kind of proof wouldn’t stand one second against any statistician. The simple fact is that you cannot prove that there is in fact gold in China, so how can you say that we who say there is no gold in China are wrong. And if you are assuming there is gold in China, what FACTS are you basing this on?
Test 5:
If a man sees a building or a painting and thinks there is no builder then he obviously does not know what a building is. Could he be looking at a large rock formation? Or is he looking at a skyscraper? How can you use the fact that some things are created perfectly for man (sic) a banana AND the fact that man has to build his own houses because god didnt build adequate ones for him as an argument that god exists… surely these statements contradict eachother? Either god creates everything perfectly for us, or we have to build it ourselves… ther eis no middle ground here… you are saying god does exist… we are simply saying that we don’t see enough proof that he does. Unless of course you are talking about HIM, then i stand corrected, his noodly appendage would never create such conundrums!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting….
However:
Why do humans still have an appendix? They serve no digestive purpose and all they can do is kill you by getting infected.
Why do we sometimes bite the insides of our mouths? What kind of perfect design is that?
Why do some lizards have small, useless stubs that used to be legs, even though they only move by slithering like snakes?
1. Evolution does not question the existance of God as such. I shouldn’t think it will ever be possible to prove or disprove His existance
2. “If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance?”
Evolution isn’t the story of things evolving and it all “falling into place”. It’s the story of billions of random changes happening in the world and those changes that are useful surviving. By “useful”, I mean able to survive. Naturally, only very few of these things are any use at all.
3. To claim that a 2000 year old book written by people with limited knowledge of the world around them is truer than the life’s work of an intelligent scientist who based his ideas on observation and logic is an INSULT to Charles Darwin.
4. Naturally of course, the above points are merely what the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes us believe by making ALL empirical data suggest evolution. Pastafarianism is no more untrue or unlogical than Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any creed you might come up with. Maybe one day, His Noodly Appendage will touch you too.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well…i wonder how long you thought about that one …besides do you really wanna make it seem bad??? FSM?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello Retard,
Yes the eye from from evolution, a single cell, when they formed multicellular organisms the ones that developed sensory details survived to reproduce, and eventually that trait was amplified. During the time, if someone didn’t accept a god, they wouldn’t be taken seriously and most of them were prosecuted. Yes, people build things with the resources they have a round them, an evolutionary trait that makes us as animals successful, but all do you really think it’s more likely that the laws of physics were created?! Some times the religious right are total morons, you think that the laws of physics didn’t exist before then? The big bang started with a single point of matter, an atom that was very dense, so the structure of the atom already existed, there was chaos and very little order at the beginning of the universe, and because we are a tiny, tiny planet we haven’t been able to experience it to the fullest, aren’t we lucky! Though if the sun doesn’t go out we will eventually collide and be swallowed by a massive black hole at the center of the Andromida galaxy. So why would “gods” favorite creations be guaranteed a horrible death? And his masterpiece destroyed? Because there is no god (aside from his holy spaghetti monster. And in answer to your last statement, have you ever actually read the bible? Because I have and it is so full of contradictions, a page after the one where it says thou shalt not sleep with a man as thou sleeps with a woman, it says to stone your daughter do death if she sleeps with anyone you haven’t consented her to! Also the bible was written 300-500 years after Jesus’ death, if he existed, so it was made up by other people against he teachings and will. Don’t pick and choose your morals from the bible and don’t tell people they’re wrong, perhaps your logic has been blinded by your religious brainwashing. FUCK YOU!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon,
`
What you and your like fail to understand is that evolutionary theory is not accident. Evolutionary theory is about responses to pressures. Why is the Bannana shaped the way it is? Evolutionary theory would predict that at somepoint in the evolutionary development that that shape for the fruit contained an advantage that allowed more members of the species to reproduce. Evolution neither proves nor disproves a god of any form. It is a mechanism, a process by which diversity occurs. Could it be the tool used by a designer? Who knows, thats a question for philosophy not biology. The fact of the matter is that the science supports evolution, the evidence supports it, and more importantly reason supports it. What creationism argues is that there is no natural mechanism, there is only the supernatural. What the evolution proponents argue is that there is a natural mechanism, and whether there is a supernatural force that is the cause of why things are the way they are is irrelavent to the study of the natural world. To put things into your coke can arguement, science does not try and explain the why it is that way (in the case of your arguement that is because its what the designer wanted it to look like) but instead trys to explain the how it was made (what tools did the designer use to make it? What steps where involved? etc.), Explaining the hows proves nothing in regards to the designer. Finally, demonstrating arguements counter to the philosophy of atheism does nothing to discredit or disprove evolutionary theory as I have pointed out. The beautiful thing about science is that it is based on observable, testable evidence, and regardless of your religion or philosophy the evidence does not change.
~
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love the example of the Banana as “The Atheist Nightmare”, since it is one of the fruits that did indeed have a creator: man!
Just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Cultivation
or look at the picture of a wild banana, the large seeds make them uneatable. There has been a lot of cross-breeding and cultivation going on in order to create our current, sterile, asexual, perversion-of-nature bananas.
The banana that this guy attributes to “God” is small, almost round, full of seeds, very impractical and really disgusting if you try to eat it.
But his God didn’t stop there, he obviously also created Pineapples, Coconuts and of course Broccoli – just to mess with us. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow that was the largest case of misquoting ever! Maybe if you did some actual research you would have discovered that was only part of the quote, taken entirely out of context and is merely his rhetoric setup. However misquoting him like this is a very popular way of trying to prove a false point so thank you for conforming to the norm of uninteligent people, using cheap tricks to try and prove a point. The actual, entire quote from the origin of species is as follows (it is very long):
“ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
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, 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 certainly 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, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition (above from Project Gutenberg)
Therefore if you were to do some actual research you would have found the truth, not just a popular misquoting that the news media today enjoys to use for celebrities, and politicians.
If you read all of that good for you, Thank you and
RAmen
James, Self Appointed king of pirates.
P.S. the source of the info for this post was http://www.aquaticape.org/darwin.html
Thank you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jonathon
You said:
“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.”
But wouldn’t it follow that to state that YOUR god is the correct god and all others are false then you are stating that you are omniscient? Can you be absolutely certain that god isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
By the way, your logic, while eloquent, is completely irrelevant. No one can know with certainty what is truth, but we can make an educated guess. Science relies on educated guesses, religion relies on a story that a group of people made up a long time ago in order to control a larger group of people.
Here’s my test for you Jonathon:
A person who believes in a story that a group of people made up a long time ago, over science (based on educated guesses) is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive
RAmen to you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another cut and paste special from an original thinker – ims.truepath.com/atheist.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay… so I think all you’ve done Jonathon (is like like a marathon of Jonas?) Is that it even more likely that the universe is governed by the FSM and not just randomly lumped together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>”The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident ”
.
But that isn’t the only alternative is it? There are many alternatives including “Natural Selection” for which the evidence is overwhelming.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh my, copy-and-paste-tastic…
Think i’ll confine myself to the banana.
“1. is shaped for the human hand.”
Or is it that the human hand is shaped for the banana, or just possibly it evolved that way to fit more seeds on the same amount of stalk?
“2. has a non-slip surface.”
so does a nightshade plant, doesn’t mean that I want to eat it.
“3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.”
or Green – still growing, yellow – not getting any more moisture (ready to fall or be taken off), black – starting to decompose
“4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.”
that’ll be where it was connected to the tree?
“5. Is perforated on wrapper.”
Do you mean the peel that can come away from it in strips, which is not unique or because there are pores in the skin (which is normal for pretty much every plant/animal)?
“6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.”
It’s made by a tree. Trees don’t know how to work shrink-wrap machines, so they have to use part of themselves, and trees are generally biodegradable given long enough…
“7. Is shaped for the human mouth.”
you clearly have a very strange shaped mouth
“8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.”
I’m sure that i mentioned it being attached to the tree by that?
“9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.”
Depends on the tastebuds, I can’t stand them.
“10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.”
I’m sure this is going back to fitting lots of seeds on a small stem? How about if you hold it the other way round, then it curves away from you, making it harder to eat, is this proof of the non-existence of your god or just her sense of humour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t you nutjobs just make your letters short? Nobody wants to read them when they are a mile long so just cut to chase and quit wasting our time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
Finally someone post on this sight with insight, proper grammar, and intelligence. For this I applaud you. Your arguments are compelling and rational and no where are we “damned to hell” for believing something else.
Now or course your coke example has a creator, it is a product of man, same for a house, etc. These are human creations and no one denies this, that would be stupid.
Let’s look at your oranges. Would it be amazing that 50 oranges fell into 5 rows of 10: yes, it would. But what if the floor was grooved/slanted, making the oranges pre-disposed to fall in those rows? Well isn’t this kind of how proteins work? Amino Acids bond together to form proteins, these longer chains form peptides which form basic genetic codes. Amino Acids are “pre-disposed” to bond in certain ways to certain other amino acids. And the amino acids are created from atoms that want to bond to other atoms in “pre-disposed” ways. Oxygen does not by chance bond to Hydrogen; they are attracted to each other to balance their nuclear masses. It’s not a total random process, a pretty incredible process though.
Ok now “The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”. This one made me do some research myself. Now this is what the web tells me from a number of different sights. I don’t have an encyclopedia with me now, but I will check that and will repost if I am wrong here. What I found is the banana does have a creator…man. Man bred two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana to make the current banana we know, made for a human hand and mouth with a great taste.
Now my opinion, stripped of the sarcasm of FSM because you posted seriously, I will. I don’t deny God. But God is all powerful and all knowing. In his infinite wisdom why would he place evidence that we gradually changed over time, that the Earth is billions of years old and then create everything individually only a few thousand years ago? Could he not use the laws of physics, the laws of nature and evolution to create us?
So what is more foolish: To blindly believe in a book that was written nearly 3000 years ago by man from an oral tradition, that was then translated again and again to make the current Old Testament that was used to answer questions people had about their world around them and unite them in common tradition; or to look at evidence both for and against evolution and come up with a rival theory that is scientifically testable.
Remember, evolution is a theory – it is a hypothesis that is backed by provable evidence from geology, paleontology, physics, etc.
ID is a hypothesis that can not be backed by provable evidence. Just because evolution could be disproved as a whole (though there is not the evidence to do this) does not mean ID is true.
For those that read the beginning and end:
May you be touched by his noodly goodness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
a building that has no builder. yes. a cave
a painting that has no painter. yes. a sunset
a car (locomotion) that has no maker. yes. a flattish piece of wood upon which to sit
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a classic mistake. Evolution has nothing to do with “chance” or “accident”, it’s a process based on one main principle, only the most adapted creatures survives (including banana trees). All these “evolution nightmares” have been demystified a long time ago…
“Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment” replace logic with faith, and this will sound much better.
Of course, keep in mind that evolution evidences have been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster to trick us.
Benoit – May the pasta be with you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would first off like to point out how pleasent it is to get a Hate mail filled with a lodgical argument instead of yelling and cussing.
.
What I noticed most about your resoning was that everything has to have a designer. While that is true with inanimate objects, that is not the case in living beings. Natural selection deos not work with inanimate objects because:
1. They can not reproduce
2. They can not gain a genetic advangage because they cant produce
3. Even if they could use natural selection, it wouldn’t have any preteters it could defend against
This is why the coke can did not just appear from the sky. But, dispite the above argument, you have the wrong site. We quite agree with you with one small added detail: We believe in UD not ID. We beleive that the Flying Spaghetti Monster must have either been dunk or stupid when he created us. So, I think you should talk to a Non-Theist Organization.
.
Sincerly,
.
Concerned Pastafarian
(Ramen)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon,
.
(Long Post Warning). Thank you for you post…it was interesting, though a bit rambling and I intend to respond to it in full.
.
First, the Coca Cola analogy. It simply makes no sense. I’m not sure you understand evolution…unless you are equating a coke can with the origin of inanimate objects like stars and planets, you cannot have a point. Coke cans don’t reproduce, they don’t have genetic material, they don’t have any kind of behavior whatsoever. If you ARE equating them with inanimate objects like rocks, etc., then the analogy simply falls apart seeing as planets and suns simply are the amalgamation of mineral and elemental forms thrown together by gravity…they were randomly produced but have order simply because they have mass and are therefore subject to gravitational force.
.
Second, the banana analogy. Hmmm…the banana fits the human hand so it has a designer; does that mean that a cactus that doesn’t fit the human hand doesn’t have a designer? I mean, what designer would put anything on earth that would harm his chosen people? A “nonslip” surface? Haha, nice. You see, Jonathon, natural selection is a beautiful thing of NATURE. The banana, being a fruit, is the means by which the banana tree reproduces. The fruit of a plant is highly adapted to be the best method for that species to successfully further its kind…the banana is not different, only our taste buds have adapted to find sweet things yummy and thus we like bananas when they are yellow. Had bitter fruits been better for us nutritionally, we may have adapted taste buds that would have preferred a green fruit, however, this is not the case and so, you think it is purely design. As for the “wrapper” and “tab” and “perforation,” well, ditto, Jonathon, these are perfect examples of adaptive strategies for reproductive success. A simple counter argument suffices: the banana is easy to peel and fits you mouth oh-so-well, but what about nuts? Nuts are hard to get into, difficult to crack, and if you don’t get all of that shell off of it, can hurt your teeth…so, no designer, right?
.
Answer to Question 1: B: A Fool.
.
What document are you referring to here??
.
Thirdly, the eye. The favorite choice of ID and Creationism alike! So, the eye is the pinnacle of design, right? No flaws in the eyes, right? Think about why so many of us wear glasses/contacts, have glaucoma, cataracts, a detached retina, lazy eyes, color blindness, or flat-out blindness? Could it be design flaws? Not if they were designed by a perfect being! Listen, the eyes are wonderful adaptive mechanisms, but it is easy to see how they might develop given enough time. Simple sea creatures may have developed light sensitive cells on their dorsal surfaces, those with the light sensitive patches survive because they can tell via a change in lighting if a predator has swum overhead. Therefore, because such morphological features are heritable, these cells are passed through generations and become more developed. Soon, a depression forms around the light sensitive cells and this allows the organism to tell what direction the predator is coming from…these survive better than their flat-backed counterparts. And on and on, in tiny steps that allow for better and better vision! Is that so hard to conceive? What is more at the root of your comments, Jonathon, is that you believe that humans are the pinnacle of creation instead of what we really are…a weak animal that has adapted brain power and manipulatory tactics to overpower our lack of morphological adaptations!
.
Regarding Einstein…he isn’t infallible and he is entitled to his opinion just as you and I are entitled to ours! Get over it!
.
Question 2: Answers: No, No, and No. So, what did you just prove, exactly? That man-made things are, by definition, made by man? Congratulations!
.
Fourthly, the orange analogy. I’m going to humor you here, Jonathon, but this is an absolutely ludicrous analogy and I suggest you stop using it. A quick lesson in natural selection: In sexually reproducing organisms, there are features that are heritable (genetic material that is passed from father and mother to offspring). Heritable traits that increase fitness (survival and reproductive success) are favored because they are passed on to offspring at a higher rate than traits that make offspring less fit. If, based on your example, oranges that fell into neat and orderly rows caused them to reproduce successfully, and this was a behavior that was genetically heritable, then eventually you would get way more than 5 oranges in a neat row…and all through natural selection (if the tree was dropping the oranges and not you)! Wow!
.
Fifthly, god and absolute knowledge. Based on scientific and philosophical research, I have found, personally, that there is not evidence that god exists and therefore I state quite clearly that I don’t think there is a god at all: this makes me an atheist. However, being a scientist myself, I am familiar with the scientific method which involves hypothesis testing and keeping an open mind with regard to the results: if hypotheses are proven incorrect that greatly affect even large scientific principles, scientists are quite ready to reject those principles and find alternates based on new hypotheses. If god was found to exist based on new evidences, I would happily reconsider…however, I do not consider myself agnostic for saying this. In other words, if scientific research showed that gravity was not, in fact, the main force at play in the universe, I would reconsider how I define gravity; however, I do not consider myself agnostic about the presence of gravity right now!
.
Lastly, with regard to your comments about computers, technology, etc. These are not some amazing things that no one can understand…they were created through scientific thought, research, and application! Come on, Jonathon, can’t you see what you’re saying here??
.
You accuse us of it, but I think it goes right back at you: Could it be that poor logic is giving you bad judgment?
.
P.E.T.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0