“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”
Hi Jonathon,
Try going to Google and entering “infinite egress”, then hit the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Mayfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Jonathon,
Try going on Google and entering “infinite regress” then hit the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Mayfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, Jonathon,
Try going on Google and entering “infinite egress” and then hitting the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Mayfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The banana was designed for the human hand? OK, how do you explain the coconut? And I think if you dropped 50 oranges on the ground for a few billion years then yes, they probably would organise themselves into five rows of ten AND ten rows of five at some point.
And YOU have to prove the existence of god, we don’t have to prove anything!
Ramen that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is probably the most hilarious thing I’ve ever read.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
WTF? Is this person just trying to collect the stupidest creationist ideas from around the tubes in one place? It’s been done, doob. You don’t need to do it again. Please stop.
All this [crap] has come before, and will come again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This guy is onto something, if Larry Flynt sees this blog how long before we see a post entitled: “The cucumber: The puritan’s worst nightmare.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The person who wrote this is:
- A. The last years winner of the Nobel prize for psysics;
- B. A North-Korean atheist who wants to test our believes;
- C. A banana;
- D. Another self-made diet-guru who wants everyone off carbs.
If you haven’t answered a,b,c, or d, you’re right.
This author is a true Pastafarian. He proves without any doubt, that our beloved FSM should be thaught worlwide at every school from Afghanistan to Zanzibar. The truth is out there, from the blank noodles of China, to the spicey Bahmi of Bali, trough the Motherland of Italy to the rich, cheesy and fullfilling unportable plates of the America’s.
Hell, personally I think – and I’m aware of being a kind of a Luther here – that we Pastafarians should stop our cravings for being peers of scientists. We’re all way deeper than them. Scientists (and their develish sons the engineers) build stuff. But who feeds them? Who provided the building blocks to grow from helpless babies to the strong and viral men and woman they are now?
Food for thought. Scientists create gaps. Carbs fill it.
rAMEN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You assert that things can’t exist without a creator. Who, then, creates the creator of the universe? As soon as you respond that something has to start the chain of creators/creations that this notion implies, I simply ask what creates that ultimate creator? If you can live with the collection of creators as a well ordered set and if you’re a fan of Zorn’s Lemma, then you can get an ultimate creator out of the whole mess. Is it possible? Yeah, maybe. It seems much more unlikely this is the case, however, than the possibility that the universe simply IS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Impressive, someone with a slightly intelligent arguement that realizes pastafarians don’t actually believe in FSM. I guess not everyone is stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your entire premise here seems to be faulty, you are comparing objects that are completely different in order to make a point. A coca cola bottle is evidently not made by chance, but in the same respect neither is a banana. The Banana is the product of evolution, bananas that were (1) shaped to fit a hand were more likely to be picked up by animals with hands, this increases the odds that they are eaten and so their seeds are spread, increasing the number of bananas that carry those traits. the same can be applied to all of your first 8 points, the 9th is related more to the evolution of human taste buds and their affinity for objects that contain nutrients. Your first “test” is invalid as your comparing apples (or in this case coke bottles) to oranges (bananas). I’m not going to comment on your second point in relation to quotes from Darwin and Einstein, as i don’t know the context the quotes were given in, and so their meaning is next to unknowable. Your second test is once again a fallacy, your are *once again* comparing different objects. Your third analogy is unrelated because the universe is in no way orderly and conventional, and as you ignore in your third test, the universe is governed by simple (in most cases) laws of physics, without which nothing can exist coherently. In test four you do raise a good point, there is no way we can prove that there is no god, we can only disprove the things that are attributed to him. It would be absurd to say that “it is not possible that there is a god,” a more correct statement would be that “there is no reason to believe that there is a god.” Your final point is a little misleading. God is not in anyway like a light wave. If he was we could detect him, ergo he wouldn’t be god.
Q.E.D your argument is faulty, you have failed to prove anything
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just a quick thought. A Banana isn’t necessarily for a human. Monkeys of many shapes have been eating them long before we came along. Evolution as well took millions and billions of years so in that time the eye forming is quite possible. Finally to know if there IS a god wouldn’t you have to be omniscient yourself to know, and i am guessing your not.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I suppose that issue is settled. Coca Cola is GOD.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look. The trouble with analogies is that they aren’t always accurate. Example: Have you ever gotten a nail to work the way you wanted it to by hitting it on the head? I daresay you haven’t. Employees, too, then–if they don’t work the way their employer wants them to, shall he also hit them on the head?
In addition, what you say about absolute statements is logically sound and makes perfect sense. Atheists do not know for certain that there is no god. Likewise, Christians do not know for certain that there is God.
(Pastafarians, of course, know for fact that there is indeed a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is truth.)
Break the word “agnostic” down. a-gnostic, from Greek a-knossos, without knowledge. You bring up an excellent point when you say that we have only a small amount of knowledge and cannot know that there is no God. Neither can any religious person know that there is a god, a goddess, or one great jolly pantheon. If you think about it the way you’ve set it up, we are all agnostics.
(Except Pastafarians.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And who created your creator?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This hate mail is quite funny, if only because the writer believes his arguments to be unanswerable by evolution. There is no need to debunk this because if Jonathon really cared about evolution as science instead of evolution as a belief he would already know that his over generalizations are either: 1) not an accurate analogy, or 2) easily debunked.
In other news: arrrrrrrrrrrrr
And may our noodley master have mercy on you
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay, you’re more reasonable than a lot of the people posting “Hate Mail”, so I’ll take a minute here.
FSM isn’t atheism. It’s about schooling. It can be based on agnosticism (and you seem to be leaning towards agnostic theism) as much as on atheism.
The entire issue is, Should we teach intelligent design in schools? FSM is a way of giving a resounding “NO!”
Even considering all that you’ve said, intelligent design isn’t science. Parents can offer it as an alternative explanation if they wish. Evolution is a scientific theory. I don’t say “scientific theory” like that settles it. That’s just what it is: theory. But it’s science. Intelligent design isn’t. So should we teach science in a science classroom, or faith?
A: Science.
B: Faith.
C: Stop Teaching.
Well, A makes sense. Science class = science, no? B doesn’t. Faith =/= Science. And vice versa. It would be an implicit lie to teach Intelligent Design, in spite of any merit it may have, in science classes. As for C… well, that’s not really an option at all, is it? If schools took that approach, they’d be failing to carry out their duties as an educational institution.
As for probabilities… If you’ve taken enough algebra, you’ve seen the way probability works. The order of complexity involved in an object would be the denominator in terms of “Probability that ____ evolved by chance”. But what’s the numerator? The number of times that this evolutionary process could have taken place. And for that, we need to take into account the sheer size of the Universe. It’s mind-bogglingly large. Neither of these things – order of complexity and size of the Universe – can be quantified in any way, but I must say that I doubt that the complexity of an eye even competes with the number of planets in the Universe with, say, liquid water.
If you want to work in terms of probability, the chances of life evolving from single celled organisms to multicellular constructs is much higher than you seem the allow for.
Also, don’t bash agnosticism. It’s a perfectly respectable view. There is evidence that God exists, but highly probable alternative explanations for much of that evidence. There is evidence that a building had a builder, and not much to explain it’s existence if there was no builder. Assuming that someone did it is not unreasonable because there doesn’t seem to be a sufficient alternative explanation. In truth, we can’t know. If it turned out that the building was formed by chance, you might not believe it, but it COULD be true. But what are the chances of that? Infinitesimally small.
Atheism is as (logically speaking) baseless as theism. There’s no proof either way, and viable explanations on both sides. I admit, my ability to argue this is impaired by the fact that I, personally, simply don’t understand faith at all.
A final point: you spoke of encapsulation in your finale as though it was comparable to the existence of God. It really, really isn’t. When I press the button to turn on a computer, I might not know what’s going on because the makers of the computer have encapsulated their processes, hidden them from the user, and thereby made their product usable by others who do not understand its workings. I have an expectation for a few clear, logical reasons. The company has promised me that that’s what the button will do. That’s what the button did last time. That’s what the button did the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that.
But most importantly I Don’t Know. It might not turn on. I have no actual guarantee that it will work. I only have an expectation.
Faith in God and an expectation of functionality are very different. No one has a contract with you that says that they will ensure that God exists for you. And you don’t have previous experience of the existence of God to use as evidence. If I knew that God existed yesterday, it would make sense to assume he exists today. But I don’t have any more or less knowledge of his existence today than yesterday.
If you want to argue from the standpoint of probabilities and logic, the only AVAILABLE perspective is agnosticism. It could be agnostic theism or agnostic atheism, but it’s all under the big roof of agnosticism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well guess what, i dont like bananas! I only eat them when there kind of green, cuz there to mooshy when there yellow. ooo burn! explain that all knowing one!!
peace love and pirates
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I FIND THE MORE I VIST THIS SITE THE MORE IT LEAVES ME SPELL BOUND,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your coca-cola can analogy is idiotic, we already KNOW it has a designer.
The banana has those attributes so the banana plant to spread it’s seeds.
-It is shaped for being able to be in bunches, a sphere cannot do this. NOT for being able to be gripped.
-Non-slip surface? I won’t comment on that…
-Color indicators, hmm… I suppose the color has nothing to do with the amount of chlorophyll over the fruit’s life?
-That tab is called a stem, and it is to hold the fruit in place before falling to the ground (or being plucked from the tree) Your number 5 attribute falls into this as well
-Biodegradable wrapper? Cause we all know that the banana is an exception from all those nasty non biodegradable fruit wrappers…
-Again, the shape has nothing to do with ingestion, it has to do on how the plant grows. Your number 8 attribute falls in to this as well. And number 10
-It tastes good so animals will eat it, so it can spread it seeds. The animals then pass the seeds somewhere else, so the tree reproduces and spreads (to prevent overcrowding) there is a REASON why it tastes good.
See, all were explained with ease, not to much of a nightmare. It didn’t happen by chance, it evolved to aid in the fruit’s purposes, to spread its seeds.
Test one is obviously B, we already KNOW the can has a designer, that does NOT mean everything that was made had a designer.
And yes, the eye could POSSIBLY not have arisen from chance, that’s why it DIDN’T. It had humble beginnings as an organ that simply detected light, for use on some monera and protistae to know where to best spots for photosynthesis where. It EVOLVED, and not by chance, by natural selection and small mutations over BILLIONS OF YEARS. Those scientists, although credible and intelligent, didn’t know their own theory completely. We may NEVER know fully of how evolution made the vast diversity of life, but I do know that it wasn’t some invisible bath robed man living in the clouds.
Test 2, No, No, No.
Oranges are a bad analogy. Don’t be comparing falling objects to the diversity of life, it makes you look like an idiot. Which you seem to be.
As if you knew how every atom works or how the universe as a collective works. You don’t, I don’t, so stop trying to prove god. You just can’t. I do not know the answer to the second question, and neither do you. Stop trying to push your beliefs on others. I believe that there was no “intelligent designer,” and you do. The first has more evidence, so it is accepted as truth. I do not know the answer to the third question.
And you have absolute knowledge whether god exists or note? You are contradicting yourself.
B, of course.
Now, stop trying to push your beliefs on others. You are just being annoying. It is fine if you believe that, that does not mean everyone else does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon
I am stunned that you have devoted so much space to one or two arguments that you should know are both incredibly weak.
The short answer to you is that we of the C of the FSM do believe in creation – we believe that His Noodliness created the mountains, the trees and the midgits, etc.
On the other hand, I could explain to you that your analogies, referring to Coke cans, buildings, cars, paintings, lines of oranges and even eyes are all the same argument. Many examples do not make many arguments. You just re-state the same weak argument many times. It represents, of course, a fundamental (perhaps deliberate?) misunderstanding of evolution, by continually referring to “chance” as the alternative.
The theory of evolution does not suggest that life forms evolved “by accident” or “by chance”. Far from it. The process of natural selection is not simply blind luck or chance at work.
For example, no-one (except creationists) puts forward the view that the eye in all its complexity just popped into existence fully formed.
Richard Dawkins *and others have explained this in far better language than I am capable of, but to understand the process of evolution it is first necessary to get a grasp of the immense time scales involved, and the millions (if not billions) of generations of successive life forms.
It should be obvious that the first step on the evolutionary path that led to development of the eye would have been a mutation that gave a primitive organism an environmental advantage over its fellow organisms by having no more than a mild sensitivity to light. Many generations later when this organism had supplanted its rivals, a further mutation would have given its descendants some miniscule further advantage. This you must know. Postulating that the eye as it exists today, must have had a designer is like visiting mountain cliffs that have been eroded and lined with water channels over thousands of years, and suggesting that someone must have put the lines in the rocks where you can see them today.
Your last point, about whether one can be certain that there is no god, is really funny. You propose something ridiculous, and then say that because we can’t be sure you are wrong, we should have faith that you are right!
Hello! What web site did I read this on? Why don’t you believe in the FSM Jonathon? Can you prove he doesn’t exist?
It’s been fun chatting with you…..
bnydeclaring there is no god, versus
therewo cliffscementadvantage
Aphorisms and quotes from the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries dio y , and then an environment in which gradually favoured the inherited characevolved first .
Human lives are so short, and our focus so narrow, concentrating as we do on this one tiny planet in one of innumerable galaxies.
You focus on what you can see around you; a Coke can, a car, a building, an eye, and give no thought to what preceded it.
I could be entirely t is only fundaThe only persons
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow! Jonathon, I’m sure you have a reasonable amount of intelligence based on your lengthy essay. But your logic is somewhat flawed. You seem to be making an obvious attack on evolution. The thing you must realize is that evolution didn’t happen by chance as you seem to think. The driving force is natural selection. Things evolve over the course of time because they are best suited to survive and prosper. A banana is the way it is because the banana plant evolved over thousands, perhaps millions of years, to produce a tasty, easily obtained fruit that animals readily consume. The seeds of the fruit pass through the animals digestive tract and get dispersed through the animals poop. (Yes poop.) If the fruit was not very tasty or hard to get at or otherwise inconvenient, the banana plant may not have survived to this day. For the sake of banana lovers, thankfully, it did.
The other issue I have is with your analogies. They make no sense. Saying “There is no God” is not the same as saying “There is no gold in China”. For while one is a testable statement (you can go to China or look it up), the other is not (There is no test for God that I am aware of.) By your logic, anything and everything is real-Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the boogeyman. Even a flying spaghetti monster. (well, He is real)
I suggest you rethink why you believe what you believe and look more closely at Pastafarianism. You may just need to get slapped across the face by His noodly appendages!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you, Jonathon, for providing us with a thoughtful, literate, and non-expletive-laced line of thinking on the existence of a creator. I do not speak for any pastafarians but myself. From what I have been able to tell from my limited experience on this site is that we are not atheists, we are just very uncomfortable with the attempts of various school boards to place religious doctrine into public school science classes by calling it “intelligent design”.
I do not believe that it is impossible that we were “built”. With regards to your discussions on the eye, however, I think you have missed the mark. It is impossible to tell how many cells of different functions existed in the eyes of prehistoric creatures, how many nerve endings they had, or how much flexing their muscles did. I believe that our eyes did not start out as complex and efficient as they are now. Complex beings have been on Earth for a very, very long time, with countless generations, extinctions, and mutations that have brought us to our current, fluid and imperfect existence. Anyone who says that we are the most well thought-out, perfectly designed divine creation is blind to our history on Earth, and not just the relatively brief history of Humanity.
While considering your thoughts on dropping fifty oranges into five rows of ten, I couldn’t help but realize that such an event was improbable. As an intelligent person, I’m sure that you can agree with me that there is a huge difference between “impossible” and “improbable”. Considering the size of the universe as measured by our scientists, which is difficult for me to truly comprehend, I must conclude that for something to never happen at random, it must be totally, %100 impossible, especially with such a low number as fifty.
I noticed “ulterior motive” appeared several times in your argument. Is it possible that those who wrote the Bible had ulterior motives? Has the Bible ever been edited? If yes, could the editors have had ulterior motives? Was the Bible originally written in English? If not, is it possible that the translators had ulterior motives? Could those translators have been in error? These very questions are the main reasons I cannot personally “turn my life over to Jesus”, as has been recommended I do. I do not believe that the Bible is a useless work of fantasy, I am just critical of a literal interpretation of what is contained in it.
Thank you again for your thought-provoking argument. It is refreshing to read an argument that has been spelled correctly, punctuated accurately and devoid of Biblical references that prove nothing but the writer’s knowledge of the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I myself find this an interesting statement, and more so that no one has come out and attacked you yet. In my experience it seems most people on this site are more then happy to tear down the people that make circular arguments or in some other way really disprove themselves in there posts. it seems that they are not as forth coming to take on some one that has put some thought into his statement so good for you. But i would like to point out a few points. First to claim that a person can not make a statement on whether or not something exists or not unless we know all of the universe is well dumb. that is to say that unless i am all knowing i cant make any statement at all such as unless you have dropped 50 oranges from the sky 10 times how can you know it doesn’t happen 5 out of 10 have you done this have you seen it then you can not make that statement. this is the point you try to make on why can not say there is no god because we don’t know every thing. Now lets talk about probability which you bring up which is in base a good argument. Until you look at the theory and yes it is a theory, that seeing as the universe is inf. or at least so massive and to escape human capacity of thought. Meaning that there are/were countless planets around countless stars/suns with the possibility of life having billions and billions of years to create life or not to create life means that at any one moment even if the odds were 999 trillion to 1 then life could still be produced on hundreds of planets every min. so yes the probability my seem unlikely to us but when looked at logically it actually can and probably did happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Johnathan
Firstly, thankyou for at least approaching this as intelligent debate rather than an opportunity to hurl some insults.
Now, it would appear that what you have is a basic and vital misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Evolution isn’t based on random chance alone, but a combination of random chance as well as natural selection; this dictates that those ‘random’ traits which are useful to the survival and propagation of an organism will be conserved and passed on to their offspring, whereas those with traits that hinder them die out. To take your example of random orange dropping, what if I dropped 50 oranges.. and then picked up all the ones which did not fit the pattern of lines that I wanted. I then glue the oranges to the floor and drop another 50. Again, those which fit the pattern I require will be fixed, and the rest removed. Eventually, although it may take me many attempts, I will have the 5 perfect lines, even though I haven’t placed any of the specifically. It all happened through RANDOM CHANCE and SELECTION.
The banana is certainly no “nightmare”. Bananas make new banana plants via seeds, which are in the bananas themselves and are spread via an animal’s dung. So the bananas that are eaten have offspring whereas those that aren’t, don’t. Therefore the most conveniently eaten bananas for their main predators (apes [including humans]) is the most likely to pass it’s genes on.
Please bear in mind that many on this site (albeit not myself) are theists anyway but still see that evolution is far more plausible. I genuinely suggest that you go and borrow or buy a textbook on evolution and have a thorough read through it with an open mind; it’s a fascinating subject. And if after that you’re still not convinced then at least you will be able to form arguments with a lot more scientific grounding that really pose problems for evolutionists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not the banana argument! NOOOOOooooooooo!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow. I used to wonder if they (creationists) would copy and paste their “arguments” from one another. This seems some solid evidence to that effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have a decent argument, sir, that truly calls out how foolish it is to claim that anyone knows with absolute certainty that there is no god. Unfortunately, you end your argument with “God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit.” You claim, with absolute certainty, that there is a God.
I’m sorry, but for your argument to work, you have to be just in the dark as an atheist is – according to you, we are all just agnostic. None of us actually know that a god exists or does not exist, so therefore we’re all in the same boat. Pick your side, I suppose – follow the scientific method or the theological method. Just keep in mind that the knowledge contained within these approaches are called facts and myths respectively.
And I can’t be the only one to see it this way, but wow. I would hate to only ever eat bananas because they were the only food “designed” for human consumption. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
half an hour ago……..
i a can formed in my cabinet, i opened it, noodly sauces and meatballs erupted into my microwave…then i eateth upon them and it was good…
many of us have beliefs in things that we do not uderstand…i believe that spaghetti is good, and that is easy for me to understand…
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
as for the banana analogy, its because of EVOLUTION fool. evolution affects bananas too, like all living organisms. concerning those quotes you gave, those are people opinions, and can be wrong. and yes i do know of paintings that have no painter. there are pools of oil and other shiny chemicals located in Israel that is a tourist attraction, ive been there. these pools of oil are made naturaly from the ground, and as i recall, paint is oil based mixed with other chemicals. concerning the oranges in a straight line, there may be a very small probability of oranges falling in a straight line, but even 1×10^-9999999999999 is greater than 0. there is still a chance that it could happen, and one of the 4 main laws of natural selection is that it is random. that random choice coild have been that very slim chance. also, if you answered that there is no gold in china, gold can be chemically engineered from different atoms and compounds, and if you answered that there is gold in china, it can be removed, because it is non-renewable. both answers are correct. if god has 100% of the knowledge in the universe, why didnt he create humans which, i have heard many priests preach, is “the perfect being” ;why didnt he make us perfect. humans develop diseases that we cannot fight such as AIDS, therefore, we are not perfect.
i believe in certain parts of the old testament, but not others. i am a semi-jew, semi-darwinist. i also believe that everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe so stop bashing this religion. and yes, it is a religion, because it has a divine being and many followers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You think you have it all figured out don’t you, you friggin moron. I usually don’t debate this type of thing with you dumbass Christians, because noting ever sinks in, but I will tell you something right now. NOT EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS HAS A CREATOR, stupid ass! If I was to burn a pile of paper, it would turn to ash. Did someone create the ash. No, a PROCESS did. The burning process in this case. So not everything has a creator, yet everything has an origin. (If I saw a pile of ash, I would not think to myself, I wonder who created it. That would be downright fucking stupid, but I might wonder about its origin.) Sometimes that origin is a creator, and sometimes it is a process. In fact, most things are created by processes, (geophysical, metaphysical, ect.) All of the things that I can think of that have a “creator” are manmade (like the bible)
And I know what your thinking in your little Christian mind… Who created the burning process then. Bet you think you got me there don’t you. Well, if a process can create an object, than I propose that a process can create another process too. This will eventually all boil down to the 4 fundamental forces in the universe. I know you are uneducated in the sciences, so here they are (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). The fundamental forces in the universe “created” all further processes. No suprizes, dieties, pixies or fucking garden gnomes here. No, science cannot explain how the 4 fundamental forces created every process at work in the universe, but mabey that is because we have dumbasses spending their entire lives thinking about bullshit, too busy to look for real answers to serious questions.
Oh, and the banana looks the way it does because of millions of years of external forces acting to evolve it. If it looks like it should fit in a human hand, it is because humanoid creatures eat it, shit out the seeds and the tree can reproduce. SO the bananas that are shaped to fit in the hand evolved to fit the tree’s reproduction patterns. It is like that with many fruits. Evolution can answer the other 9 points about bananas in a similar manner. I wont go into all of it, use your head and figure it out yourself.
A true intellect knows it doen’t matter what the opinion of any scientist is. I don’t give a fuck if Einstein or even Darwin believed in god. I only care about the facts they uncovered, not thier personal beliefs… if they have theories that are unproven, and science has shown that they are, then I will not believe in those theories, but I wont discount all of the work they did just becasue they had a backward ass friggin idea about something else that was false. This is fallacy, and you should stop using it to prove your pathetic points about there being a god, becasue you are making yourself look stupid by doing so.
Third analogy: I agree 100%, but it has nothing to do with god. third test: I don’t see how you got from droping oranges to atomic arangement in the universe. atoms are organized the way they are because of electrical forces in thier structure and will always follow the same pattern because of (here it is again) the 4 fundamental forces. under the right conditions, hydrogen and oxygen will always make water. under the conditions in the early universe, atoms will always make a universe that looks similar to the one you see. The differences will be due to quantum uncertainty. That argurment was useless on your part, because you are compairing apples (or should I say atoms) to oranges.
4 th point: I cannot say there is no ultimate cretor of the universe, but the odds of there being one is far less than the odds of 50 oranges falling into a 5 rows of 10. WHy, because early man was looking for answers that were out of his reach when he created god (to answer those questions) it was a good guess to figure that something created everything, but there were other options early man could not have dreamed about that could have also been good guesses. Like evolution and the big bang. Most cultures have a religion, yet none can agree upon the one true religion. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that early man got the diety-creation theory correct on his first guess, but got everything else wrong (since there is no agreement on which religion is rigth)? Only a stupid fucking asshole would believe that Early man’s guess is as good as Darwin’s incorrect eyeball theory you wrote about, both were wrong, and I could give a shit about either, I only care about the science, not the theory of a man.
I am not an agnostic, because being so is almost as fucking stupid as being religious. Someone dreams up anything, (god, FSM, santa clause, you decide) and I should think… I can’t prove it doesn’t exist and I cant prove it does exist. SOMEONE FUCKING MADE IT UP… OF CORSE IT DOESN”T FUCKING EXIST. Thinking about it goes back to my point about thinking about bullshit. It is a waist of time and therefore takes time away from thinking about things that really matter (like answering the questions you are making up bullshit to explain in the first place). SO don’t fucking call me an agnostic, because it offends me deeply.
“Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman?” What the fuck does this even mean… why would a thief want to find a policeman?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Obviously, you have not even spent the time to read the website. In case you haven’t noticed, God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created our ancestors, the pirates, who we share 99.9% of our DNA with.
But on a more serious note, your analogy and “tests” are seriously flawed. Obviously, you have not learned basic biology, so allow me to lay it out for you.
Evolution states that as earth is going through its materialization process, elements bind together and forms an amino strand. In order to survive, the strand adapts to the elements around it, and becomes more complex, then its complexity grow, until it develops into animals, then intelligent beings who discovered how to use the elements around them to create spheres, metals, paint, and as you so eloquently stated, coca cola cans.
Therefore, unlike a coke can, or a building, human beings, and the “unseen forces” they are using CAN develop out of random. There are countless stellar constellation in the universe, and an infinite possibilities that is happening all around us. A simple chemical equation, in which molecules bind together to form a different compound, has less than 1% chance of occurring, given the geometry of the bonds, but because the molecules will continue to hit each other until a bond is form, chemical reactions do occur. Sure, it took billions of years before the conditions on earth allow organic molecules to form, and even more time for it to develop into human beings, but need I point out that we have archaeological evidence, which support the time frame of evolution?
Your argument is full of flaws, but the one flaw that have long disproved your theory, and the bible, is that of time. We discovered how to make paint in accident, much like all the components of coca cola. Even so, it took less than a millennium to put all of it together. So if an all knowing, all powerful God created us with the intelligence we have, then earth should, at most, be 20,000 years old, given the rate of human development. Archeology suggest otherwise. So now, we are left with 3 choices.
1) Humans are morons, and after building civilization, didn’t start developing until around 10,000 years ago. (A ridiculous theory, I agree.)
2) God made a lot of mistakes while creating everything, so he keep wiping out everything and start over, hence creating the chronological evidence. (But alas, if he makes so many mistakes, he can’t possibly be all knowing and all powerful)
or 3) There is no God. Probabilities and causalities created the universe, and one of the phenomenons created earth, and the life on it.
The way I see it, you are the one who has an agenda. You cannot find it within yourself to believe in your own strength, so out of weakness, you would rather believe that you are created by some idiotic being who should seriously consider attending anger management classes. Not only that, but you want to pull everyone in to hide your own weakness.
Here’s a final, parting thought: if God is really all knowing and all powerful, why would he be tired after creating earth? Why would he even need 7 days. He could have just snapped his finger, and make everything happen, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i find this topic very interesting because there are so many different theories now of how the world began. this doesn’t answer questions as such but helps you group together ideas and also helps you to understand what to focus on. you also seem as though you have no particular view but are also trying to map together how we became how we are today. if you have any more information regarding this topic i’d love to hear
alex
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s been a while since I actually had to think to any degree to kill a theory with logic(though this is more telling of the material that I read than the quality of my thought processes), but there does seem to be a need to dismiss this with reason instead of ranting.
-
“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.
…
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
-
I propose this alternate theory, in response:
-
“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced raw energy that formed into matter and antimatter in the universe, but an imbalance in the amount of matter versus antimatter eventually sided on the form of matter that exists today(a process which took more than a few days), until it consisted of almost all the matter in the universe, including some that hasn’t yet been accounted for. Among this matter was a cloud of simple elements. A hydrogen cloud eventually condensed with the help of gravity that came about through the amount of mass in a given area and ignited into a star, which existed for a very long time(more than a few days, at least), combining simpler elements into more complex ones with heat and pressure(see “Nuclear fusion”), then exploded in a supernova event, forcing the remaining elements into eachother with such heat and force that even more complex elements were formed. This happened many, many times all through the universe(This also took more than a few days). Eventually, a great deal of matter was fused by the stars being created, existing for a time as they processed elements, and exploded, creating even more elements. Many, many stars exist at some random time index X, and the ranged area we exist in had a lump of hydrogen that turned into a star, and many other lumps of debris that weren’t absorbed by the new sun ended up caught in the gravitational pull, and circled the sun, as they collected some of the remaining materials with their own gravitational pull, and generated much heat from the force of gravity being exerted. Many enormous planet-sized hunks of rock hit these new planets and either destroyed them, combined with them, or split off significant portions of their mass into chunks of rock that sometimes maintained an orbit around the originating rock, or left their orbit. Such strikes also helped create a rotation of these chunks of rock. This happened many times around the cosmos, however the supernovas knocked the planets out of the solar system, leaving only higher elements and a cloud of remaining lower elements that never made it to the fusions point in that star. Rinse and repeat a few times, and we’re still in our own solar system, but the time, which is rather recent(though, not within a few days), is now when the earth and several other familiar planets have been created. They go through periods of complete uninhabitability, probably multiple times. The earth is probably struck by a huge comet and the moon goes into orbit from the debris thrown off the earth. After much, much time passes(another more-than-a-few-days? it’s probably more than a week by this point), things settle down enough that there’s a very high temperature, only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and puddles of stuff I can’t even imagine, as well as some amount of surface water from a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. In one such puddle, pussibly many such puddles, across the surface of the earth, there were the conditions and ingredients required to make some form of life. Deoxyribonucleic acid was formed in at least one of these puddles, and was capable of using the surrounding ingredients to self-replicate. Over time, the more superior forms of this, with the most resilient setup, ended up surviving for longer periods of time, and generating more copies of itself than less-capable ones. Due to some mix-ups, some of them weren’t perfect copies of each-other, and some of those copies outperformed the originals, so they became more common and lived longer. Fast-forward this process by a while, and you end up with DNA-based things that can use their environment more and more effectively, have DNA that is structured more and more efficiently as new generations win the survival race against less efficient ones, and generally have a survival of the fittest thing going on. Then, oxygen is somehow introduced into the environment, possibly by super-heating H2O into it’s components, and the water begins to become oxygenated. Many, many, many DNA beings die from this, but some survive just by chance and the number of them affected(this is rather like evolution, y’know). Evolution continues with a newer set of oxygen resistant DNA beings floating around, becoming more complex, until the first single-celled being that could be considered more than just a blueprint developes, possibly using it’s environment more effectively, or protecting itself from it’s environment more completely. Fast-forward about 24 hours(days?weeks?months?years?decades?centuries?millenia?) and you end up with multi-celled creatures that sometimes feed on the environment, and sometimes feed on each-other. Then come the land-critters, the dinosaurs, the mammals, changes in the environment the whole time, the end of the dinosaurs(unless you’ve got a fido-saurus rex you’ve been hiding), the age of mammals, much more time, new species, extinctions, evolution, and finally, somewhat like monkeys, a species that relies less on instinct and more on what’s found in the environment.”
Now, if you actually managed to read the above, then I ask you…why? I spent the better part of an hour thinking this through…but besides that…if you understand the direction I’m thinking than the actual question to ask is…
“In the trillions squared by trillions squared by enumerabley trillions of days that the above took, with all the stuff that was happening everywheres in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, isn’t is just possible that life could’ve come about at random, possibly more than once, and finally end up a system that replicated itself using it’s surrounding environment and be sufficient at upgrading itself through natural selection?”
If you answered no to the above question, you’re just too damned hard-headed…though you weren’t a pain in the butt.
The above was a very loosely assembled bit of info. To try to explain all that has happened would be insane, because the whole point is that enough has happened, and has had enough time and space to happen, that the odds of something simple being created, and the odds of it having the neccesary qualities to survive, aren’t so astronomically low as to be unthinkable. After it was created, and could survive, the rest was up to a great deal less chance, and a great deal more environmental effects.
To paraphrase a quote from someone who’s name just plain eludes me…
“The solution to a question can be obvious, simple, and wrong, or it can be complex, convoluted, and right.”
-
Yes, the above was ginormous in size, and I’m all too familiar with how weak minded piss-ants get when you try to force-feed them information at this magnitude, and will simply turn into a troll to simplify things. If “Jonathon” can actually create the source material he posted, he should be able to see my train of thought though.
-
“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.
-
Hurray, a point we agree on. The flying spaghetti monster has been well-documented, with many people able to reference the sources of his diving sayings, so it doesn’t matter how absurd the idea behind the FSM is. Since it’s documented, it’s as good as gold. Documented=TRUE!!!1
-
-
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.
-
See the first statement. We just don’t have access to the original energy source yet. If we did, we could replicate the matter/antimatter part, and make all we wanted with enough time…though, there’s likely a finite amount of energy in the universe, much of which is in the form of matter still. Maybe someday we’ll even figure out why there was an imbalance in the amount created, and be able to replicate it.
-
-
“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.”
-
That’s like saying babies are born a complete individual, fully grown, completed in their learnings…the statistics are staggering how much must still be done to make a brain work the way it’s supposed to. Things developed into what they are over time. The reason fossiles are interesting isn’t just because it’s a rock that was once a living thing, it’s because the things that are so old they turned into rocks aren’t like what we can find on the beach, in the water, or on land today in many cases.
Take a can of Coca-Cola for example. Was is always a bottle? Always a can? Did it always have the same ingredients? Was it ever addictive? Ever poisoned? Is it perfect? Was is created the way it is now by 1 person making 1 batch of the stuff 1 time, after deciding on the ingredients 1 time, their quantity 1 time, writing it down in stone, making as much of it as they could, putting the powdered substance into a metal can(YES A _CAN_!), selling it to 1 malt shop(MALLLLT SHOOOOPS!), where 1 person mixed the first spoonful of coca cola into 1 glass of carbonated water, after which, the first person who drank it unanimously decided that it would be extremely popular, and made it so magically.
Now, tell me the odds on THAT one happening as described.
-
-
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.”
-
Then football games, as well as all sports games, must be played forever from now on, in the ’spirit’ of good sportsmanship. To stop the good sportsmanship in any way would damage the ’spirit’ of good sportsmanship, and if there was ever a lack of any sports occuring at any time since the creation of good sportsmanship, then good sportsmanship will have died and only evil people will play sports, and someone should go kill them all if that happens.
To be frank, I think you took the idea too literally. You may think differently, and I can’t honestly say because the words we’re arguing over weren’t spoken by either of us, so they mean precisely what the speaker intended them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.
My interpertation of spirit means an underlying cause. To say that there is a universal equasion driving the existence of the universe could mean to say that the spirit of the universe is in the math behind it, though it may be too complex to be revealed, or too simple for our desires. As simple a matter as it is for the moon to get between the earth and the sun is, it was once thought to be a bad omen, and was acted upon as such. Does that mean they were mistaken? Were they right? Or, did they simple ‘dress up their lack of knowledge as gods and demons’? Can’t really answer that last one. There are forces in the universe that are currently beyond human understanding. That, however, doesn’t mean those forces are any different from a wind that could help sail a pirate ship home in 1 mile, and knock down a chapel in the next mile.
-
-
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?
-
4. Do you know which came first, the chicken or the egg? Yes? No?
The 1-3 above are all human creations. If you’re suggesting that humans created god, than I wouldn’t fault you for the suppressed understanding of the truth of it.
-
-
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.”
-
Uh, dummy.
Regardless of the odds, to prove the existence of something, you have to show it.
This is asking to disprove it, otherwise it happened.
If I say, ‘Prove that no spaghetti is intelligent, percievable or otherwise’, and you can’t disprove that all spaghetti is unintelligent for lack of access to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you’ve failed to convince me. I have a magical faith shield that protects me from attacks on faith because my deity is too busy altering statistics to do more than hold me on the earth’s surface, and my deity can’t be percieved by anything in the universe unless the FSM wants to be percived. See? I win, because my god is real, which proves your god wrong, which means your god could be wrong in every letter of every word in every book being taught by every person to every student. I’m not saying your god is wrong, but he could be because of the above.
-
-
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.
-
1. Chunks of solid iron never float in water unaided
2. God never heals amputees
The above are true. From this, I can deduce 2 things:
1. Iron is denser than water. I can deduce this because things less dense than water float in it, while other materials more dense than water also sink. I don’t need to know the details, as long as I know whether or not a material is denser than water, and doesn’t have any factors that would alter it’s bouyancy.
2. God never heals anybody. I can deduce this because all of those who recovered could potentially have done so naturally. As no injury that’s unhealable, such as amputation, is ever naturally recovered from spontaneously or over time, then it follows that no injury could ever be healed by god. This is as simple to see as the difference between iron and wood in water. If 2 identical blocks of wood were placed in the water, and 1 floated, while 1 sank, then there might be some valid point in your argument, but that’s not the case.
-
-
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.
-
FSM is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Pasta. Immortal and invisible… like the invisible pink unicorn. He can can not be experienced unless he chooses it. One should approach the Loose Canon in the same way. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.
There, fixed. You typed yours out wrong, so I repaired it for you.
-
-
Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-
ulterior motive: use logic
Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? (christians give everyone a bad rep, pirates, thieves, atheists…)
Could it be that your judgment is destroying your logic?
-
To the mod who has to decide if this is a valid post: sorries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon
thank you for you well reasoned comment on the website. Everything you say is of course true. The spaghettti monster is behind all of the design that we see. Everytime I eat bananas I give thanks to the spaghetti monster that he designed them perfectly for me and designed the intelligence in man to allow him to deforest large tracts of rainforest to grow them, build carbon emitting ships and planes to bring them to me in Britain so that I may enjoy it, for otherwise his sujects in temperate climates may never now his glory and the bananas would be eaten by monkeys which are surely the lowest of creatures. Everytime I see a straight banana I am filled with anger and anxiety for the mockery it makes of his glorious name and the difficulty I will surely have to eat it without it’s sacred curve. Surely nothing is as blasphemous as this abomination, execpt for the banana that curves AWAY from the face.
How foolish we are as men not the make chocolate bars similarly shaped, surely millions of people would have avoided starvation were they not so difficult to eat. My heart bleeds just to think of those poor children trying so hard to insert a blut-ended, straight Mars bar into their hungry mouths. Don’t they know that to eat something that is not is shaped for the human hand and mouth with a non-slip surface and outward indicators of it’s inward contents with a tab for removal of it’s biodegradable wrapper plus a point at the top for ease of entry and curved towards the face to make the eating process easy is impossible? Oh the humanity, why does my lord persecute them so?
When my dog ate a whole bunch of bananas skins and all I had him put down for casusing offecnce to my lord by eating food that wasn’t designed for him. I have a new dog, but I can’t yet identify food that is specifically designed for him so he is looking a but skinny. On that note do you know of any other food that is designed so well for humans? My doctor says my potassium is getting really high and that I might have a cardiac arrest. I can’t understand why such a well designed food has so much potassium in it anyway? My wife had kidney failure and eating the bananas caused her cardiac arrest and untimely death, my daughter is allergic to banana and we have to go the the ER almost every mealtime. Doctors tell me that our reliance on bananas is causing unecessary harm to my family, but they are non-beleivers and these things are sent by the monster to test me. We will have our rewards.
Peace my brother
Gwill
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
huuuuurgh…I’m going to make a cup of tea..anyone else want one?, or are you all asleep?
somebody get the boy a richard dawkins…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The banana analogy is pathetic.
To clarify, the banana didn’t occur by CHANCE. No one is suggesting that anything ever happened by CHANCE. Everything that has evolved did so by a gradual process of improvement – slowly…
…I give up. Sometimes it is clearly not worth arguing. If you want to read a logical, thought-provoking, scientific work of literature that will address all your concerns with bananas and bacterial flagellum read Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion. If you want to beleive that a creator made the universe – believe it. I just can’t understand how you accept that as a truth given that, to answer the question you set, you need to explain where the designer came from… perhaps he was designed? Perhaps it is true – ‘It’s turtles all the way down!’
Computer waves – whatever they are – would be detectable. As are human thoughts as electrical activity in the brain. There are very strong theories WHY we have evolved with a biological need for a religon but don’t suppose for a moment it is me who is closed minded.
:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS. There are lots of things you CAN’T DISPROVE but you wouldn’t suggest that they are there by default! Why don’t you believe in Thor, Zeus or the magical part human, part orange, part Blu-Tac elf that I’ve just created in my mind? No Atheist I’ve ever met would suggest that there is DEFINATELY 100% no god but it is not a helpful theory. Looking at evidence it is unlikely, there is no evidence of god other than your suggestions that because something looks designed it must be…
Example One:
Why is it that you don’t believe in the ancient Roman gods? Because your parents didn’t believe in them and they didn’t pass that delusion on to you.
Example Two:
Why is it that you don’t believe in the ancient Roman gods? Because your parents didn’t believe in them and they didn’t pass that delusion on to you.
Example Three:
Why is it that you don’t believe in the Islamic gods? Because your parents didn’t believe in them and they didn’t pass that delusion on to you.
Example Four:
Why is it that you don’t believe in the Hindu gods? Because your parents didn’t believe in them and they didn’t pass that delusion on to you.
I’ll stop there as I’m seeing a pattern and my human mind has evolved to look for patterns… I wonder what you would believe if you hadn’t met anyone that told you about Christianity. Maybe you’d be worshipping the wrong god… maybe you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolute statement: 2+2=4. Ha ha. Beat you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have you ever seen a wild banana?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice straw man. First, you don’t understand anything about biology, which is fine, ignorance is a right. The banana also fits well in a monkey’s hand. Maybe God is a Chimp and wonders what kind of mutation occurred in His design to make some twisted looking bipeds without a lot of hair. Gross.
You’re an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Concerning the banana, of all cultivated plants we know most (nearly everything) about its evolution:
The holy FSM even combined chromosomes of different species to form the cultivated banana Musa x paradisiaca, which is sterile and cannot exist in the wild anymore:
pathh.diinoweb.com/files/BananaBotanicGardenHeslopHarrison.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is a huge misquote, a popular trade among creationists, misquoting the whole story, only leaving in the first bit, his rhetoric opening. Please for the love of noodles, read “on the origin of species” as it contains the whole quote.
RAmen
James D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jonathan, very good, you are so close to seeing the light. Just replace “God” and “builder” with “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in all of your tests. How can you be sure that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster in China without absolute knowledge of China? You can’t! Ergo, FSMism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dude, we have found a God…his name is FSM. We don’t need YOUR creator, because ours has been proven with scientific fact :). So why can’t you believe ours? The same logic–albeit a bit falty–can be used to disprove Christianity.
The man who sees a building and doesn’t see a builder probably has an alterior motive. It’s likely he’s trying to get the building in a court case or something.
The man who tries to make Pastafarians Christians is a fool; we have found the truth, and it tastes wonderful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(gold)
Dude, we have found a God…his name is FSM. We don’t need YOUR creator, because ours has been proven with scientific fact :). So why can’t you believe ours? The same logic–albeit a bit falty–can be used to disprove Christianity.
The man who sees a building and doesn’t see a builder probably has an alterior motive. It’s likely he’s trying to get the building in a court case or something.
The man who tries to make Pastafarians Christians is a fool; we have found the truth, and it tastes wonderful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Jonathon, let us continue with your logic.
Analogy 6
Test 6:
1. Do you know any builder that did not have biological parents? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painter that did not have biological parents? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any carmaker that did not have a founder? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
So who created your god? I would say the FSM created your god. You would say that you know your god wasn’t created by the FSM. Using ‘your’ logic;
To declare that the FSM is not the creator of your 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.”
(…)
Likewise; to state that the FSM is not the creator of your God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that the FSM did not create your god.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who let Ray Comfort out of his cage?
.
OEJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jonathon –
your logic is flawed – read the God Delusion, take a logic course at a local college, get back to us when you’ve been touched by his noodly appendage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0