“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”
A few facts for you to chew on. I won’t address all of your argument because I have better things to do but here are a couple of:
1. The banana that you know and love (Cavendish banana) was in fact “designed” by modern man. It is the product of selective breeding to remove the seeds, increase the size and ripening time. Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana
2. Atheists do not declare that there is no god through an absolute knowledge of the universe. They simply state that since there is no empirical proof of any god known to exist we must conclude that there is no god until it is proven otherwise.
3. Your logic is easily turned on itself since you must also disclaim absolute knowledge of the universe and can therefore not prove the existence of your god.
4. While you are at it, please prove to us that there is a greater likelihood of your “god’ than any other god, like the FSM. Please also note that if you try to cite written accounts of the existence of your god, like “The Bible”, you must then explain to us why other gods like Odin, Zeus, and Horus do not exist since they were written about and believed in by people more than a thousand years before your christian god was written about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathan –
I, for one, am intrigued by your long-winded and seemingly rambling and vapid rant. You’re right, of course: from everything that I’ve understood about the Christian god, his work is very comparable to that of the Coca-Cola corporation. Not at all like that Muslim god, Allah, who could be compared most accurately to PepsiCo.
I think the best way to proceed from here (in the interest of a fair comparison between our divine masters) would be to arrange a debate between your “Jehova” fellow (family name?) and our beloved FSM. If you can touch bases with your boss, and get him to show up for such an event, I’m pretty sure we can arrange for His Noodly Appendage to grace the proceedings and contribute. Just go ahead and have him post with whatever subject he’d like to tackle, first, and we’ll see what happens.
Kindest regards!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most of your post is complete drivel but I will comment on a few things
.
.
I don’t know any atheist who would make such an absolute statement; it is the religious people that claim absolute knowledge on the nature on the universe. I don’t know what world you live in but on earth it is usually the person that makes a claim of something that must prove he is right. It is not up to us to disprove God but for you to prove His existence.
.
.
You forgot option D. The man doesn’t exist!
Everyone knows buildings must be built because we see people building them, no theorizing is necessary! Pointing at something that was obviously made doesn’t mean that everything in (and including) the world was made on purpose by an intelligent force.
.
Actually I do know how a computer works and if I didn’t I could find people who do. The information is available to people who want to know, this is not the case with your deity of choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Blast that Ray Comfort and his impeccable grasp on logic!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bananas:
1: The human hand evolved to grasp things – therefore it is capable of grasping a banana, among other items.
2: Other fruits do not have nonslip surfaces. Were they not designed?
3: The banana’s purpose is to facilitate spreading of the plant’s seeds and thus its genes. If the banana is picked and eaten before the seed is ready the seed will not germinate. Thus it is evolutionarily advantageous for the fruit to “advertise” ripeness
4: This is the stalk which connects the fruit to the tree
5: See 3. If the fruit could not be opened, the seed would not be dispersed.
6: It is biological material – of course it biodegrades.
7: See 1 and 2.
8: See 1 and 2.
9: See 3. If animals did not like the taste, the fruit would not be picked and the seed not spread.
10: I don’t get this one. If I turn a banana so it no longer faces me, does god cease to exist?
Jonathon, what you have succeeded in doing is inadvertently to demonstrate the mechanism for evolution by means of natural selection. Over millions of years, those plants have managed to reproduce successfully which have been fittest to do so – in the banana’s case because they have invested energy and resources in creating fruit which will attract animals, including humans, to spread the plant’s seeds.
Test 1: B
Eyes: Darwin did indeed write the quote you use. I have seen it many times quoted by creationists. They neglect however to note that in the very next sentence he starts to explain how it could happen. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html for further explanation.
I will leave the Gallup for the moment as it touches on chance. More on that later.
Einstein: his belief or non-belief in a god is at best a subject of argument. His last words on the subject were “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Test 2:
1: No
2: No
3: No
The oranges. Now were are into chance. Agreed, it is highly unlikely that 50 oranges randomly dropped on the ground would form the shape you describe. However, this is a very bad analogy to evolution by natural selection. Evolution emphatically does not progress by chance alone. Yes, there is an element of chance, but the crucial driver is natural selection. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html for further explanation.
Test 3:
1: Debatable
2: Neither
3: I cannot be bothered to work it out. In any case it is irrelevant as explained above.
“To declare there nis no God…” etc. I agree that to make a positive declaration that there is no God is not logical. It is logically impossible to prove an absence. However, this is not the position of most atheists.
Atheism is not a belief in the nonexistence of God. It is the absence of belief in a deity. I hope you can see the difference. I, for example, do not say “There is no God”. Mostly I do not think about it, but if asked, I say “I see no evidence of the god you speak of so it seems logical to conclude that it probably does not exist” (obviously I don’t say it in exactly those words). If you were to give me irrefutable proof of a god’s existence that I would change my postion.
Test 5: B
Fair play to you for engaging in a polite and intelligent manner unlike some of the comments I’ve seen here. I hope you’ll find I’ve tried to reciprocate.
Oh, and First. Yay me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is such a sad misinterpretation of logic. I’ve heard this argument too many times and unfortunately, it holds just enough “logic” to persuade certain people.
What this guy should realize is that if the world was created like a house or a row of oranges or whatever, a) it’s so complex it would’ve been a right pain to create, and b) it could just as easily have been created by the FSM. Ramen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So who/what made God?
Was God designed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Uuuhhh, according to the coca cola website Coke was made by John Pemberton, an Atlanta pharmacist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alright I’ll start with the banana.
First off, the modern banana is a domesticated product. It is in no way a wild type.
Wild type bananas look absolutely nothing like, nor do they contain the same properties listed by the above poster. The modern banana was control interbred and selectively grown by human beings for hundreds of years to create the plentiful and pleasing product that we now consume today. Much in the same way that humans have grown selectively bread tomatoes to have vibrant red color, or cross bread tangerines and pomelos to get tangelos, or the significant and well recorded history that man has had with the domesticated dog and the domesticated horse. In fact humans are still creating new breeds of dogs today such as the suddenly popular Puggle (pug mixed with a beagle). An interesting fact is that all modern domesticated canines were bread from a single species of wolf, and then selectively interbred for size, coat, and build to create the diverse and unique breads we see today.
In other words the banana is a testament to the human intelligence. It was created rather recently by human determination and like all other domesticated products has absolutely no connection to a divine being.
The banana is most certainly the theists “nightmare” as its mention as a proof for gods existence not only shows the ignorance of the theist but also the relative stupidity and most certainly a lack of education.
You would be more served to mention the intricate symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers, although of course this is easily explained by the great crane that is evolution. Which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with chance, in fact it is the exact opposite of chance. Any educated high schooler would be able to explain the various points of evolution to which the original poster is either ignorant of, or simply does not care to understand beyond the fact that it does not agree with what his/her parents had taught him/her.
We could just pretend that the wild type banana was specifically created, since the original poster is apparently capable of believing anything, including far fetched fairy tales.
But what would that mean? Is it a proof of “Gods” existence? Especially a god that holds such powers as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence? Does a banana prove Jesus’ almighty power? Or does it prove Krishna’s almighty power? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monsters almighty power? In reality it only proves that there was some “force” that drove the banana to take the shape it did. Much in the same way that Humans were the force that created the Domesticated Banana. Up until genetics were combined with natural selection we didn’t have an adequate explanation for this informational gap. For some people “god” filled this gap. But why is the default answer “God”, it could be any number of forces, just like the case of the domesticated banana (which was humans). We now have a much more beautiful and simplistic explanation to such events and that explanation in the biological realm is Evolution.
So stop following this poorly conceived illogical proof:
1) Things in the universe are very complex and interconnected
2) Things are so complex that I am either unwilling or unable to try to further my understanding of them (complex beyond my limited understanding)
3) God must have created them.
Conclusion) God exists and has exactly all the properties that my parents/peers told me he has.
Think about all the scientists that were boggled by the discovery of micro-organisms, what if they had just stopped and said “You know what, Jesus/Allah/Zeus must have made these things, so I dont need to investigate any further.” We as a race would still be dying from polio, and small pox, and the common cold.
“God” was not the answer in the case of the domesticated banana, he was not the answer in the case of micro-organisms, and he is in no way the answer for any other point of existence that the theists are either too ignorant or too lazy to investigate. The Christian god had no influence in these cases, nor anything else, because he does not exist.
As for your quotes you have horribly misrepresented Einstein and Darwin, and show absolutely no knowledge of their written works. I suggest you take a moment to read Darwins “Origin of Species”, which is from where you have taken your quotation about the eye. Darwin bated you just like he bated all other christians before you. He uses the quote below as a literary device to keep the reader interested. Its a rhetorical setup:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree”
After which, he immediately explains why it “seems” improbable and how evolution explains it exactly down to science, every last part and how evolutionary forces acted to create the final complex product we call the eye. He bated you in and then pulled the wool out from over your eyes, the only problem was that you were tugging down too hard on the wool blinding you because it felt comforting and warm and because your parents told you to do so.
Its time to peek out from under your bed sheets, you and all theists are like a scared child cowering under his blanket of security, unwilling to check and see if the monster he thought he saw was real. You cower behind the cozy unchanging religious doctrine for fear that the world you thought you knew as a child might actually be something else. In fact something much more grand and interesting.
Darwin far exceeds any explanation of the complex eye then I could ever give, so I suggest you take a second and read his works, if you don’t find anything interesting than you can go back to church and pay the priest to forgive your sins. But if you do find something interesting then I suggest you pursue it and stop settling for blatant ignorance as an answer to everything. Either you will redouble your faith, or you will learn something new, in any case it cant hurt.
I will come back and disseminate the rest of your arguments as soon as I can, or let my faithful shipmates do it for me. For His is the Carbohydrated Goodness that will reveal all things.
RAmen
FULL DARWIN QUOTE:
“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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Johnathan, What if the same can said Budwieser? Is that proof the the can was preveted by an evil entity and therefor there is a “Satan”? The banana fits a Human hand? Does not all simian hands have an opposible thumb and fit a banana as well? Your premise is skewed to your conclusion, then your logic follows and analogy is always suspect. I am however blown away by your summery that I “took a step of faith” to turn on my computer? And Then “God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves.” Computer waves… You know.. your argument was consisent throughout and then fell apart like sox coming off a sweater coming out of the dryer. And as analogies go, that one is dead on.(Look it up kid, maybe you will get a chance to think for yourself and not present others arguments as your own.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mmmm….sweet brown liquid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mmm…..sweet brown liquid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe you stumbled upon the wrong website. Here, we believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be his noodles.
Anyway, here’s some information:
1. I agree with you, the creation of a coke can from nothing is rather improbable. The forces of nature tend towards Pepsi cans.
2. The banana was cultivated over thousands of years. Look at wikipedia’s entry on bananas. Wild bananas are very different from their cultivated counterpart, which are very yummy. Wild bananas are not nearly as convenient, though they may be yummy too. I haven’t had one.
3a. It appears that things sort of work out? Things sort of seem like they follow laws, though we’re still trying to figure out how those laws work exactly. I’m not sure I’d call atoms orderly, since the paths of elections seem rather random, Zombie cats and all.
3b. Did this happen by accident? I’m sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster had some reason to make physics so interesting in general scale, while being dreadfully dull when you get down to the specifics.
3c. The chances of the oranges lining up like that are rather low, but the chances increase when the oranges are dropped constantly over a period of billions of years. Different oranges, of course, since oranges get all smooshy when dropped.
4. This is actually an important part. Science cannot tell us anything for certain, we can only go by observation. And any observation we make is subject to intervention bye His Noodly Appendage. And again, you must have posted to this website by mistake. We believe very strongly in our God, and are as certain as anyone can be towards his existence.
5. Since you didn’t provide us with an answer, I suppose I’ll choose C. When someone goes around questioning things which have lots of evidence behind them, they’re usually arguing with a teacher, or on the internet. My dad is a contractor, most houses I’ve seen were made by someone. There is the possibility of a house being formed naturally, but it’s not the general case from what I’ve witnessed in my existence. Maybe that sort of thing happens more often where you are? I should travel more.
As for computers, it took a few years of college, but I understand how it all works pretty well at this point. When I turn on my computer, I KNOW why it works. Just because something is complicated, and a lot of things are, does not mean they are magical. Except maybe raisins. I’ve never been sure about those.
And for your ending, again, this is not an atheism-based website. We understand that there is a God, and that God had two meatballs and eyestalks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m bored, so I’ll reply to this. :P This hate mail has so many problems with it I hardly know where to start.
To begin with, with your first analogy, you use a coca cola can, which is technology. Technology cannot be compared to life in this sense, because technology cannot reproduce, nor can they have natural mutations, nor do they compete for resources in order to survive. Using them as a parallel to living organisms is false and misleading.
As for the banana, I can’t believe your actually using this as a sensible analogy. I saw this on a YouTube video, and it’s so obviously ridiculous that I wonder how anyone can take it seriously. The banana has evolved this way to make itself more appealing to animals to eat, so it can reproduce. It’s shaped perfectly for the human hand because the human hand is *remarkably* similar to the hands of apes and monkeys, and it’s no wonder that the banana would evolve to fit *their* hands. It’s pleasing to the taste buds because our taste bud have *evolved* to find it pleasing, because it is good to eat. If it tasted horrible, we wouldn’t eat it, and would therefore miss out on good food. I can’t be bothered to point out the other easy explanations to this, as they should all be pretty self-explanatory.
Then you use technology as an analogy again, which is already proven to be of no use.
As for the eye argument, this has been disproven so many times it’s untrue (metaphorically :P). Here’ll be your answer: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html. The quote you have got from Charles Darwin has been quote mined from his book; after he says this he goes on to prove that although it *seems* ridiculous, there is actually a way this could happen, way before any of you creationists even thought it up.
Something else you need to know; evolution does not happen by chance. It happens by natural selection, which is the very opposite of chance. So everything you say here is just useless.
Albert Einstein was a pantheist (look it up), and did not believe in a personal god of any kind. Quote mining him does not make your argument any more valid, nor does it disprove ours. Besides, Isaac Newton was a mystically minded alchemist, but does that mean everything he said about gravity and the laws of motion are by definition false? Of course not.
Using technology again, and then useless chance arguments, yawn. :P
Finally, you try and put the burden of proof on atheists. Which is rather silly, because you’re doing it on the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is basically suicide. :P
I’ll say to you: “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 Flying Spaghetti Monster does indeed exist?” (Assuming there’s no evidence yet for His Noodliness, just for the sake of argument.)
The fact is, you can say this about anything, but that doesn’t mean that all those things are true. It’s impossible to prove a negative, so saying God must exist because you can’t prove he doesn’t is just pointless, or we’d have to believe everything that anyone ever comes up with.
You seem to have a bad understanding of what atheism is or encompasses. You are talking about “strong atheism” which is the active denial of gods (”I believe there is no god”). Most atheists are “weak atheists”, who don’t know for sure there is no god but assumes there isn’t because there’s no evidence yet (”I don’t believe in a god” – sounds similar, but has an important difference), on the same basis that someone might not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (for the sake of argument again ;) ). Agnostics are people who don’t take the probability into account (that it’s more likely there isn’t a god than there is, so it’s safe to assume there isn’t), and so refuse to take a position.
The computer is wholly different from a god, because if we wanted to, we *could* find out how it works, and moreover there are people around who know how it works and can explain it to us in an understandable and believable way. With a god, no one really knows for sure, unless they are deluded. (Incidentally, electricity doesn’t travel in waves, it’s a stream of electrons. :P)
In summary:
1. Technology cannot be compared to life.
2. Bananas evolved to be like that in order to reproduce faster.
3. Irreducible complexity etc. is rubbish.
4. Quote mining is stupid and lends no credibility to your arguement.
5. Putting the burden of proof on atheists is just silly.
6. Most athiests just don’t believe in a god, they don’t strongly deny there is one.
7. Electricity doesn’t travel in waves.
There you go. That was vaguely amusing. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem is, by disproving our god, you disproved your god…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If only he had looked into the pineapple argument before trying to deal with the banana: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/banana-and-peanut-butter-arguments-on.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t you just love a nice loaded question plus someone that can copy and paste someone else’s bull so well? Explain the perfect utility of the prickly pear if you would be so kind?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apologise in advance because, even though single minded people such as you, for the most part, only humour the other side of the argument. I am going to systematically oppose your point of view and make you see logic.
I will repeat this but only to solidify it in your consciousness. Just because our existence is so mind bogglingly improbable, does not mean that it has to have a creator. Say if you were to flip a coin, and it were to land edge on, even though it is incredibly unlikely, it is possible, but it did not require that something supernatural made it land edge on.
Have you ever wondered why your “God” whoever he may be, did not fill the universe with life? The reason why the universe is not teaming with life is because it is incredibly unlikely, but none the less, in a universe, the likelihood is that it occurred somewhere, and that occurrence was us.
What you do not seem to understand is, given time and space enough, the most improbable things will almost definitely, eventually occur.
All these examples you give are pure chance and natural selection, the bananas that grew to suit primate needs, were more successful and so spread and thrived.
You give the examples of; a coke can, a car, a building, a painting, but I put it to you that these are things that you know have been made and a simple minded person can only answer yes, but in the ungraspable vastness of our universe, however improbable there is a possibility that a copy of the Mona Lisa could miraculously be created without it being humanly painted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I always thought the bannana argument simply proved evolution. It can be used either way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ah, but the problem with that little oranges question is that if you drop the oranges enough times, they will fall into the requested lines. sure, it might take a billion trillion tries, but (here comes the analogy) there are millions of planets, and on each planet, billions of cell mutations are happening each day (each second, even)… so why isn’t it possible that one of those mutations is the start of a chain that eventually leads to the evolution of humans?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So Jonathon, who designed your designer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well….seeing as the scientific belief of a mans creation is like a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000,000. or however many zeros you please, the universe has existed a long time and I chose to believe the right conditions would have came along since it might have existed about 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 years. which means that chance might have happened about 10,000,000,000,000,000 times. and…if you drop oranges enough times….it would happen i think…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Test #6
Explain the process of evolution by natural selection.
Too late, you’ve already failed this test. Evolution by natural selection is precisely NOT random. It doesn’t need a designer either, just the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. You fail to grasp this, and I assume that is why you posted these tired old (and actually laughable, I mean a banana, come on) arguments. You also obviously haven’t taken an elementary stats class. If you can correctly explain to me what evolution by natural selection actually is, and demonstrate a knowledge of the idea of statistical certainty, then I will take you seriously.
The burden of proof lies upon you, my uneducated friend. Not me. If we see (in the broadest sense) nothing, we say nothing is there. We may be wrong, but in the case of God, the chance is very, very, small. So small I feel confident saying there is no God. In the exact same way I feel okay in saying that a murderer committed a crime, even though it has not been established 100% that they killed someone, only “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I have way more than reasonable doubt as to your God’s existence, and no reasonable doubt as to his non-existence.
I have way better proof as to the existence of His Noodly Worship then I have for your God. I even have a graph!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Couple of points for you. Firstly look up evolution, it has nothing to do with chance or luck, its about developing to suit the world around you.
Next i would like to point out how you talk about god being existing, then you say that to make a statement you need absolute knowledge on the subject, are you telling us you have absolute knowledge on god and the creation of the universe, if so you seriously be telling scientists and the church and the government etc etc, not an internet based parody religion.
I would also like to say we are not absolute atheists complaining about religion, i for one am agnostic. The idea is not to stop religion or any such nonsense, just to prevent it from having any negative affects in our lives, like replacing science in science class.
Finnaly, if bannanas are so perfect how come not everyone likes them, I for one cannot bare to touch them. your imagination there was very much alive: “indicators” fruit changes colour as it ripens, its called development. Yes it almost certainly is lucky chance in this case, out of all the fruits and vegetables in the world this one does happen to have a number of qualities valued for human consumption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re obviously an intelligent man. I must say I’m glad to see something other than the usual “Wut teh fuck is ur fucking problem?” You present a good argument Jon. Let me retort. Not all of us think things evolved by chance. I am a firm believer that evolution is based on chaos in order in chaos in order. Have you read Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. One of the characters is a scinetist who deals with chaos theory, and he talks about fractals. Fractals are things that look the same no matter how many times you multiply them. The universe is basically a giant fractal. What looks like chaos on the small scale is actually ordered, it has a system. Evolution has a set path, it’s probably happened on thousands of other planets all across the universe, exactley like ours.
Now, who draws out this grand scheme. Maybe it’s chemical formulas, things set in stone since the beginning of time, maybe it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe it’s this “God” fellow. None of us really know for sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
backwards science and logic doesn’t make something so, there are innumerable variables you never took into consideration.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon why don’t people like you with long winded emails always miss the point? Are you really that ignorant or just plain stupid.
.
If you took the time to click about you would realize this has nothing to do with Atheism. It has to do with treating Intelligent Design as science when it is not. That’s It. You admitted yourself there is no proof, no flesh and blood.
.
Again, although some may be atheists on this site not everyone is an atheist. Personally, I have no issues with anyone having faith. Each must do their own thing to get through this life and if believing in GOD is what someone needs in their life, all the power to them. However, faith in something does not make it science. That it!
.
So I think your faith is “clouding your judgment” because you fail to comprehend the simple purpose of this site. Your blinder’s only cause you to see this as an attack on faith, GOD, or whatever when that is not the case.
.
Additionally if you are going to quote Charles Darwin with what he stated how about reading the entire quote from Darwin. Most people like yourself have the habit of taking pieces out of context to try to prove a point when in fact they missed the point all together. Missing the point game is something you are good at considering Charles Darwin and evolution has NOTHING to do with how life started, meaning genesis.
.
In closing, believe what you will. If a Designer makes you sleep better at night then that is fine and that is your opinion. It should not be taught as science!
.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
*Laughs* Wow, the ol’ watchmaker argument again. I can understand why they still use it of course, it was only refuted about 150 years ago… man, some people are stupid. And this one also apparently has nothing better to do than type out an essay length version of it. And it’s still no more correct than it was when Paley first proposed it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“the banana……Is shaped for the human mouth.”
i thoguht it was shaped like a dick…wait a minute! i believe this guy just came out of the closet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I normally don’t reply (in other words, I am a lurker) but I know the refutations to all your “Tests.”
A) If the banana is an atheists worst nightmare, then the pineapple is a creationist worst nightmare. Why would God create such a stupid fruit? Not only is it difficult to open, but the bush produces only one fruit per year and sweeten varieties had to of been bred just for normal consumption.
1) I’m not sure where you were going with that, but I’ll refute both points. The coke cola can has a designer because we have documented proof of the designer (Earl Dean). Pointing to our eye and saying “Ah ha! This thing is much too complex for us to designer! Clearly it must have been designed by someone smarter!” is a logical fallacy (actually two fallacies). You are assuming everything needs a designer, a very bad assumption to make as many of your other “tests” also rely on this assumption. Unfortunately, the burden of proof to show that everything needs a creator is yourself. Pointing to complex systems and shouting “Ah ha” does not qualify.
Oh and I’m going to ignore your misquotes. Context is key.
2) Again assuming everything needs a creator.
3) I’m guessing you are trying to make the point that the chance of evolution is so small that we could never have arose. Unfortunately, you are not up to date on the theory of evolution. As simpler organisms (bits of protein) develop ways of reproduction (self replicating bits of protein) they drastically increase their odds of survival (giant self replicating bits of protein). Granted, it does take a bit chance (atom collisions) for these proteins to orientate themselves correctly, but once reached the process can continue indefinitely. And then we move up from there.
4) Of course we need absolute knowledge to know things are absolutely true. But we only need relative knowledge to know things are relatively true. For example, we could use a radio frequency that vibrates only gold and run it through all of China while measuring the vibrations. With that we would know if there was gold in China or not.
Also, on your circle of knowledge bit, I can refute your claims with your same example. This “circle of knowledge” bit is nothing more than a metaphor for observations, so I’m not going to use it. So far, in your lifetime, you must have observed a certain amount of things that has lead you to the conclusion of God. Likewise, I have observed a certain amount of things that has lead me to the conclusion that there is no God, besides FSM. Since you stake the claim that God does exist, I stake the claim that you have not seen enough to know that no god exists, besides FSM. So until you know 100% of everything, which you yourself said you don’t, you don’t know if God exists anymore than I know FSM exists. But I have observations supporting my claims and I have a good guess that all you have is a feeling and an old book. We didn’t make computers on feelings sir.
5) Again, assuming everything has a creator. An atheist can’t find god because he has a pretty good guess that there isn’t one there. He can read all the sacred books supposedly written by gods and find how they don’t apply to the natural world. He uses only logic to form his judgments, observations to support his logic, and his handful of senses to make his observations. Anything else is superfluous superstition.
-Ben
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why do we keep receiving atheist hate mail? Is there an atheist website with a similar web address as this humble center of knowledge of the FSM?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
*sigh*
OK, I guess it’s my turn this time. Jonathon, please try to pay attention.
“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.”
No, your theory is an insult to my intellect because you give no evidence to support it. This is a common problem when discussing religious theories.
“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”
this is on the same level as asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife yet. I think perhaps that Jonathon has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious.
The banana example puts the cart before the horse. People evolved in an environment in which bananas were a potential food source. The ability to exploit that food source is a survival trait. So the retention and refinement of this ability is a natural course for evolution to take.
Your “points”, one by one:
1. The banana is not shaped for the human hand. The human hand is an incredibly versatile tool, very good for grasping and manipulating an incredible variety of shapes, including that of a banana.
2. The surface of a banana is no more or less non-slip than the majority of seed pods in nature.
3. Outward indicator of contents – same as any plant, edible or not.
4. A tab for removal of wrapper (it is difficult to treat your post serously, sir, when you persist is being rediculous) is inaccurate. It has a stem, a differentially evolved portion of a leaf that has a slightly more fibrous texture, giving it sufficient rigidity to be grasped and pulled.
5. Perforated wrapper – the casing of the banana is formed from four modified leaves that separate before they tear when appropriate force is applied to the stem.
6. Biodegradeable wrapper – all plants are biodegradeable.
7. It is shaped for the human mouth – no, the human mouth is shaped for things roughly the same size and shape as a bite of a banana.
8. Has a point for ease of entry – no, it has a point because banana leaves are long and narrow, and the casing is formed of modified leaves.
9. It is logical that bananas should taste good, why would we evolve so that something that was a beneficial food source would be otherwise?
10. It is only curved towards the face if you hold it that way.
And you posit that to claim the banana happened by accident is “even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.” I disagree. The banana evolved to its current configuration as a seed dispersal mechanism. If no one picks it, the seeds fall to the ground below the parent tree, and have a very small chance of growing, because of all the shade from that tree. If someone picks it and eats it, the undigested seeds (the seeds are very small, less likely to get crunched in the chewing process, especially since the banana has evolved into a soft fruit, not requiring much chewing) are transported to the point where they are pooped out (in a handy mound of fertilizer), which is unlikely to be in the shade of the parent tree, and therefore a place where the seed is more likely to thrive. Notice the frequent reference to probabilities. This is how evolution works.
“If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? ” So that means that flipping a coin and getting tails twice in a row isn’t chance either? How much can happen by chance before it can’t be by chance? (Hint – develop a concept of how long the time periods involved in major evolutionary advances are). Evolution does not claim that the eye was created by chance, but rather by many many chances over many many years, some of which increased the likelihood that the individual would survive and continue to pass the particular change on, and some of which decreased that likelihood. When that happens enough times, you get stuff like the current version of the human eye. So I ask you, if man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind NOT believe that it was created by chance?
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.” Really? Can I see the calculations? I refer you again to the hint above.
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.”
I was unaware that Einstein had knowledge of the opinions of everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science, especially since he has been dead for quite some time, and people are still interested in the pursuit of science. Einstein was, after all, a human. Humans are not perfect. I don’t remember seeing anything that makes me think Einstein never made a mistake, so why should I think him the ultimate reference on a subject that was not his forte? He dealy in physics, not metaphysics.
“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:______________________…”
This is the exact same idea as test 1. Ask a question about something that has the sasme fell as the topic under discussion, but has no relevance. Coke cans, buildings, paintings, cars are items that are human-made, “created” in very short periods of time, requiring no self-organization, not animate, requiring no archaeological or prehistoric evidence or interpretation thereof to justify their form or existence. The evolution of life (if that’s what we’re talking about) is something that is subtly ongoing, and has been for BILLIONS of years. Again, please refer to the hint above.
“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.”
Drop those oranges once a minute for two billion years, and I betcha they line up more than once. Show me the calculations for those “mind boggling” odds, please, don’t just throw it out there and expect me to believe it. (sound familiar?)
“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.”
This is your best argument, Jonathon. However, if you take the time to read some of the information on this site instead of leaping to conclusions and assuming things for which you have no evidence (a common trait of the hyper-religious), you will discover that in general we pastafarians do not deny the existence of god. We simply believe in a different one than you do, or in some cases, several different ones. Why do you feel that our god does not exist? Do you have absolutely certain knowledge of this? Please don’t hold it back, we are anxiously awaiting enlightenment.
“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”
More of the same. I think by this time we have all figured out who has the ulterior motive.
“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.”
Bad analogy again, friend. If my computer doesn’t work, I can call tech support and get it fixed. If your prayer doesn’t work, can you call tech support and get it fixed? Or if they can’t fix it, can you get a new god?
You sound like you have the potential to be intelligent, Jon. Intelligence is not blind acceptance of everything your parents tell you. Intelligence involves inquiry and investigation, and forming opinions based on the results thereof. Opinions thus formed are not necessarily facts, but they night be. Opinions based on absorption and regurgitation of dogma are rarely, if ever, facts.
RAmen to all.
ET
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathon
I would like you to be very assured that I personally have faith.
I have total faith that religious fanatics like you will pop up and demonstrate their complete ignorance of science, logic and common sense far too often for one to believe in our educational system. Congratulations on yet another nonsense composition, the only thing missing from it was a prayer for we poor unfortunate nonbelievers.
Now wait before you get upset at my comment; your composition was well formatted, virtually free of grammatical errors and was mostly comprised of easily understood words. See, I said something nice about it. But sadly it did not organize those words into anything resembling logic. Although I am not an expert in logic, with this composition you seemed to have created an entirely new branch of logic that I hereby christen as head-up-the-ass (HUTA) logic. One must have their head up their ass to find any real truth and meaning in it.
I assume that my comments will little to dissuade you from further spewing your HUTA logic, but first before writing again, please take a hint and read http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html. Here you will at least learn a bit about framing your composition in a manner that might at least cause a soon to be ex-believer into pausing for a quarter of a second.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geez that was long. Apparently you have absolutely no concept of odds and therefore will not survive in Vegas. Bananas are tasty, but I think Chimpanzees enjoy them too, along with gorillas, so is there a correlation that our evolutionary primate bretheren enjoy bananas, possibly(they are not always user friendly and you can still eat them even though they are black). Plus other animals and even some fungi enjoy bananas, but according to you it was only designed for humans. And what about the other fruit in the world that is not so cleverly evolved for human hands, i dont think coconuts and grapefruits are easily handled or curved to eat, but they are still tasty and so we eat them for subsistence. And I don’t think that a coke can could evolve being that it has no DNA or living cells, it is composed of inorganic Aluminium alloy with an inorganic paint sprayed on it, and of course a human designed it and made it because its a freaking aluminium can! Oh yeah and the oranges, however improbable that they may fall in that order it is not impossible, so it can happen. When I turned my computer on I know that if it has a power supply from a power plant that the microchips, fans, hard drive, etc. will work and I will see an image on the screen. I’m tired of typing, but I hope that you take some more Science classes to understand the evolution of life on Earth and that his noodly goodness touches your brain. Ramen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK then, first off, the banana evolved into that shape and taste because then it was more likely to be eaten and pass on it’s genetic code.
Secondly, just because some things are manufactured/designed (tests 1 & 2) does not mean all things are, for instance, some things are made of chocolate, but that doesn’t mean all things are.
(3) It is possible for those things to happen by chance, as it did here on Earth/our Universe. It happened on this planet/in this Universe but not necessarily on/in others. The chances of it happening on/in one planet/universe are low, but the chances of you being alive on/in one of those planets/universes is 1, as you can only be there if it happens.
(4) To state that there is a God is an absolute statement as well, yet I doubt you have any more knowledge on the subject than every Atheist on the planet. Also, the court system says beyond all reasonable doubt, and I am sure beyond reasonable doubt that there is no god, as I am sure beyond all reasonable doubt that there is not an invisible teapotdirectly between us and Mars.
(5) I know (in the reasonable doubt sense) that my computer will turn on because there is evidence that it will turn on, eg. it has turned on before, but there is no evidence that there is a God, so why should I believe that?
-Dr Dagger
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m with you Jonathon,
clearly Coca-Cola, the banana, and China could not have just evolved over billions of years. They must have been designed by a designer.
And a designer that clever couldn’t just appear out of nowhere–he, she, or it must have been designed into existence.
So before the designer who brought us Coca-Cola, the banana, etc., there must have been a designer’s designer.
But, wait! Before the designer’s designer could appear, there must have been……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon,
Let me reply to your (very old and already debunked) points.
Cans of Coca-Cola are not alive and don’t reproduce, so your analogy is inapproriate.
The Banana: The Atheist’s Nightmare (my personal favourite)
First of all, you seem to know nothing about bananas. The bananas you buy at the supermarket are domesticated fruits, presumably bred by inhabitants of Papua-New Guinea about 9,000 years ago. A wild banana looks nothing like a domesticated banana and is not really edible. Even Ray Comfort (who came up with this ridiculous argument) admitted defeat on this one.
But I’ve got another one for you. You have the atheist’s nightmare, I have the theist’s nightmares: *rolling drums*
introducing the coconut and the pineapple
the coconut
1. is a pain in the @ss to crack open
2. tends to have laxative properties when consumed in excess
3. can easily kill you if happen to pass under a coconut palm at the wrong moment
4. truly testifies to the existence of the FSM, it is modelled after the FSM’s meat balls, and is found primarily in the tropics, where Pirates, the FSM’s Chosen People, originated
the pineapple
1. is also a pain in the @ss to cut
2. has lots of black spots inside you have to remove
3. can make your tongue bleed because it containes lots of enzymes
About your tests:
You’re comparing non-living artifacts, of which we know they are man-made, with living self-reproducing organisms. This is getting boring and repetitive
The “no gold in China” thing:
I could make a similar statement and you’d have to agree with me:
“there are no leprechauns floating in space”
What would I need to have that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of space?
B. Partial of space?
C. Absolute knowledge of space?
The answer is C
HOLY NOODLE !!! There are leprechauns floating in space as we speak!!! Amazing !!!
Now try it the other way round, which is the way things work in life:
Is there gold China?
Dig at select spots where gold is most likely to be found (and be prepared to loose many miners, mine safety in China is pretty crappy)
If you’ve tried all the spots where gold normally occurs and haven’t found anything, you could say there probably or most likely is no gold in China
And about the buildings: we know what buildings are, we see them beeing built all the time, and we see the people building them, they are called construction workers. Praise the construction workers, the mighty creators of buildings.
I hope you see how faulty your logic is, and that there can be only one conclusion: the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, who (among many other deeds) made coconuts in the image of his meatballs
May you be touched by noodly appendage, Jonathon
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We appreciate your lengthy attention to detail Jonathon, but there is one glaring flaw in your argument. You are trying to apply rules of logic to religion, when it has already been established that logic and common sense are diametrically opposed to religion, and are therefore incompatible.
In other words, religion as a whole (not just Christianity) has almost never made any sort of sense, at all. Trying to piece together a coherent social structure out of the writings in the various archaic, semi-coherent, contradictory and badly edited religious texts can only result in insanity or a brain aneurysm. So please, put your logic away and enjoy a big plate of pasta…it’s on us. Trust me, you’ll feel better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
also I believe you plagiarized almost all of this
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh my GOD. This is just absurd circular reasoning!
.
If bananas taste good, it is because it’s nutritious and then our organism has encouraged us to eat it through evolution. Furthermore, have your forgotten that monkeys may eat bananas? This is just broad nonsense. We eat bananas BECAUSE it fits our needs. If we were made another way, we would maybe eat SOMETHING ELSE.
.
All your other examples are as silly as the former.
.
Oh and by the way…. who the f… designed the designer? Nonsense question with nonsense answer, for you postulated that this designer just existed and was ETERNAL spirit. Think that is a bit cumbersome as an hypothesis, don’t you?
.
See ya, I must go to do some handjob. It appears that my penis has the same shape as the bananas, and is at the necessary height for my hand to grab it, and that it’s pleasant when I do it! And after that they tell God was against masturbation…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Johnathon, let me just start off by saying that this is by far the most rational, well-contrived argument against atheism and evolution I have ever heard in my life. You forced me to re-examine my beliefs in a way nobody else has even begun to succeed in doing. Almost every other person who posts on this website essentially tells Pastafarians to go to Hell. Your argument has restored some of my faith in the intelligence of humanity. I really wish I could talk to you face to face so that I could consummately articulate all the ideas I have, but I will try to do my best in writing.
You make the point complex life is so improbable that it is almost definite some sort of intelligence designed the universe. This is not true. Even you cannot deny that it is at least possible, however remotely, that complex life could appear by chance. Now, consider this. In order for us to notice the fact that it is almost (the operative word being almost) impossible for complex life to exist by mere happenstance, we ourselves must be a form of complex life. You see, no matter how unlikely it is for complex life to appear, the universe is so vast that it has to happen at least once, even if the chance is infinitesimal. And because we must be a form of complex life to realize this incredulity, we would have to be that one instance. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t even have the capacity to be wondering about this.
If our system did not work so well, if we did not have things like bananas with features like biodegradable wrappers, we would never have been able to get to the point that we are at now and consequentially would not be able to notice how incredible it is that we have gotten here.
Still, the argument does raise some questions about the validity of evolution. Perhaps it is wrong. It very well could be. But really, what is there that we know to be correct without a shadow of a doubt? For all you know, you could have an extra arm protruding out of your back, but you could be insane and selectively ignore any sensory input that would lead you to believe this without even realizing it. It’s an extremely far-fetched premise, but not an irrefutable one. When you get right down to it, all the information you have of the world passes through your senses, and they are not invariably honest. Really, then, you cannot be completely sure of anything.
Obviously, if all this is true, anyone who believes that evolution is right beyond any sort of doubt is delusional. However, anyone who believes in God beyond any sort of doubt is equally delusional. As you said, we have only a taste of the knowledge in the universe. There could be something out there to disprove evolution, but it is just as likely that some form of information out there could invalidate your entire argument. Why, then, believe in God so vehemently? There exists always some chance you have committed some act of misconception somewhere.
This is all extremely disheartening. So, I offer this as reassurance. True, if you want to be technical, nothing, not even your own existence, is certain, but what is the point of debate if you will only invalidate everything? What’s even the point of living? Because of this, I choose to make the assumption that everything is basically the way it seems on a fundamental level, meaning that I do not have a third arm growing out of my back, meaning that I am a human being, meaning that I live on the planet earth, and so forth. I assume that my senses are bona fide. Once I have made these assumptions, the ramifications are obvious.
I put faith in science because it has empirical evidence to support it, and because it has bestowed obvious benefits upon humanity. I put no faith in any form of religion because there is no legitimate evidence to back it up. I assume the theory of evolution is right, but I remain open to new evidence and stand ready to listen to whatever arguments the next credible theory makes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All of these arguments were pilfered from Ray Comfort, evangelical christian. He was involved in a debate on ABC which covered these arguments, dubbed ‘RSS vs. Banana Design Squad’. Here’s the debate, which highlights several of the many flaws in the above post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh3oIo6pvLM&feature=related
Three more things. Firstly, I didn’t base my assumption that my laptop would turn on on ‘Faith’. I based it on past experience. I’ve switched my PC on many times, so it’s reasonable for me to assume that the next time I do so, it’ll work. Faith is based on… well, nothing. It’s beleif in untestable premises.
Secondly, logic does not cloud judgement. That’s an idiotic suggestion. Judgement based on anything other than logic isn’t judgement at all. It’s called ‘guessing’.
Thirdly, what on earth does ‘finding god’ mean? I’ve never been given a lucid definition of the phrase.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, one more thing. Suppose God did design the banana. Why didn’t he put all of the components of a balanced diet into them, and why didn’t he put banana trees all over the place? Also, why did he make some fruit poisonous? Bad joke perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Johnathon, let me just start off by saying that yours is by far the most rational, well-contrived argument against atheism and evolution I have ever heard in my life. You forced me to re-examine my beliefs in a way nobody else has even begun to succeed in doing. Almost every other person who posts on this website essentially tells Pastafarians to go to Hell. Your argument has restored some of my faith in the intelligence of humanity. I really wish I could talk to you face to face so that I could consummately articulate all the ideas I have, but I will try to do my best in writing.
You make the point complex life is so improbable that it is almost definite some sort of intelligence designed the universe. This is not true. Even you cannot deny that it is at least possible, however remotely, that complex life could appear by chance. Now, consider this. In order for us to notice the fact that it is almost (the operative word being almost) impossible for complex life to exist by mere happenstance, we ourselves must be a form of complex life. You see, no matter how unlikely it is for complex life to appear, the universe is so vast that it has to happen at least once, even if the chance is infinitesimal. And because we must be a form of complex life to realize this incredulity, we would have to be that one instance. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t even have the capacity to be wondering about this.
If our system did not work so well, if we did not have things like bananas with features like biodegradable wrappers, we would never have been able to get to the point that we are at now and consequentially would not be able to notice how incredible it is that we have gotten here.
Still, the argument does raise some questions about the validity of evolution. Perhaps it is wrong. It very well could be. But really, what is there that we know to be correct without a shadow of a doubt? For all you know, you could have an extra arm protruding out of your back, but you could be insane and selectively ignore any sensory input that would lead you to believe this without even realizing it. It’s an extremely far-fetched premise, but not an irrefutable one. When you get right down to it, all the information you have of the world passes through your senses, and they are not invariably honest. Really, then, you cannot be completely sure of anything.
Obviously, if all this is true, anyone who believes that evolution is right beyond any sort of doubt is delusional. However, anyone who believes in God beyond any sort of doubt is equally delusional. As you said, we have only a taste of the knowledge in the universe. There could be something out there to disprove evolution, but it is just as likely that some form of information out there could invalidate your entire argument. Why, then, believe in God so vehemently? There exists always some chance you have committed some act of misconception somewhere.
This is all extremely disheartening. So, I offer this as reassurance. True, if you want to be technical, nothing, not even your own existence, is certain, but what is the point of debate if you will only invalidate everything? What’s even the point of living? Because of this, I choose to make the assumption that everything is basically the way it seems on a fundamental level, meaning that I do not have a third arm growing out of my back, meaning that I am a human being, meaning that I live on the planet earth, and so forth. I assume that my senses are bona fide. Once I have made these assumptions, the ramifications are obvious.
I put faith in science because it has empirical evidence to support it, and because it has bestowed obvious benefits upon humanity. I put no faith in any form of religion because there is no legitimate evidence to back it up. I assume the theory of evolution is right, but I remain open to new evidence and stand ready to listen to whatever arguments the next credible theory makes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
sorry about repost; it didn’t seem to be working for whatever reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Jonathon,
You have some good arguments for why people shouldn’t argue against the possibility of God. Maybe you’re right. Maybe no one can ever be sure, given the fact that the existence of God is nonfalsifiable. However, that’s simply not how people live. People live as though God is real and does exist. They live in a way in which their afterlife is based on moral action in this life. Good thing they can ask for forgiveness for all those petty sins. One thing I wanted to point out to you is some work being done by Developmental Psychologists on how children attribute design and intention to artifacts and animals.
http://www.bu.edu/childcognition/publications/index.html
It is argued in some of these papers that we intuitively reason about design in artifacts. Perhaps, these intuitions carry over into thinking that we too were designed? Just look at how complex we are! Natural selection can’t possibly do that in a few billion years! Well, just think for a minute. Are we designed perfectly? Evolution works on what architecture is already in place. You would think if we had this great, benevolent creator, he would at least get it right the first time. See some of Paul Bloom’s work on this topic. No sir, I’m still not convinced by your argument.
The most I’ll give you is “I don’t know.” But with that said, I will live my life as such and not associate myself with any religion or any God. I do admire the magnificence of our world, our mind, and the universe. I am dedicating my professional life to the study of human cognition. You don’t need religion to get that it’s amazingly complex.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So if I can’t log how do I contact someone in charge?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are Pastafarians… We believe in the flying spaghetti monster and agree with you not go find some other site to preach your imaginary friend at…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Jonathan,
Try googling “infinite regress” with Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Mayfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0