While I had originally planned on attempting to critique your theory that a gigantic monster made of spaghetti created the world, I found that it wan’t so much a theory as a statement which you have made and which you have offered no evidence for except some vague reference to some book which you have not shown to actually exist. Since the only discernable tenet of FSMism is that an SM created the world, I would posit that FSMism would fall under the umbrella of ID and therefore does not need to receive special consideration apart from ID in the classroom. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and FSMism all hold substantially similar viewpoints in their claim that a supernatural being was the first cause.
A better countervailing viewpoint to atheistic macroevolution’s claims of an eternal universe, abiogenesis, and decent through modification, would be that the universe, earth, and life simply popped into existence uncaused with no explanation. This would actually be a more logical inference based on overwhelming observable evidence such as the big bang theory, the cambrian explosion, Pasteur’s experiments which proved life does not spring from non-living matter and the biological fact that cross species reproduction cannot occur. Furthermore it would not posit a metaphysical explanation for existence as FSMism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do, nor would it be in conflict with the known laws of physics, mathematics, historical geology, and biology.
Of course the idea that our universe, earth, and life just popped into existence uncaused, seems as ignorant as believing a walking bread beast did it.
-ryan
‘Walking bread beast’? Would it be a garlic bread beast by any chance, because that would fit perfectly with FSM theory.
Can we say “Completely MISSED THE POINT”? I knew we could…
As for the “vague reference to a book” it DOES exist, and is available at many fine bookstores everywhere. RAMEN!
I think you missed the entire point of the FSM.
He is true because He spoke to me and told me so.
[quote]Since the only discernable tenet of FSMism is that an SM created the world, I would posit that FSMism would fall under the umbrella of ID and therefore does not need to receive special consideration apart from ID in the classroom. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and FSMism all hold substantially similar viewpoints in their claim that a supernatural being was the first cause.[/quote]
Ding-a-ding-a-ding-a-ding! We have a winner. Now, Ryan, would you care to walk that idea about for two hundred, or would you like what is behind door #3?
That’s Saint Garlic Bread Beast. Please afford him the respect he deserves. I do not pray to Saint Garlic Bread Beast personally. I prefer Saint Red Pepper Shaker…the patron saint of spiciness.
“Since the only discernable tenet of FSMism is that an SM created the world, I would posit that FSMism would fall under the umbrella of ID and therefore does not need to receive special consideration apart from ID in the classroom.”
.
Well, duh! You obviously haven’t read the open letter.
.
St John the Blasphemist
Saint of Uninformed Critiques
Hey ryan (why isn’t this capitalized? Do you have self-esteem issues? Do you think it is pretentious?). I enjoyed your not-critique (though it smelled a bit critiquetastic from my end). I think Barnes and/or Noble will be able to give you the proof you need about the existence of the Gospel. Also, FSMism has other tenets, such as lack of pirates causing global warming. FSM would not fall under ID because FSM holds more with the theory (hey, if ID can be called a theory so can this) of UD, Unintelligent Design. I’m surprised that somebody as observant as you have proven yourself to be at the local bookstore hasn’t picked up on that.
Macroevolution isn’t a real term, it was invented by creationists to discredit ideas they didn’t like while still being able to say they support science. Also, it isn’t strictly Atheistic, and associating science with a religion (or lack thereof) is silly; they are different. This is akin to calling geometry Greek Pagan because some early people in the field happened to be the ancient Greeks.
Evolution does not claim that there was an eternal universe or abiogenesis, it just says (in a very basic sort of interpretation) that through the generations, an organism’s offspring will vary from that organism and will eventually adapt to a changing environment. Saying that life popped into existence uncaused and without explanation seems a bit unscientific, and since we are talking about science education, I think it would be wise to stick to that.
The big bang theory (it’s not a theory, it’s just called that) is not observable evidence. The Cambrian explosion tends to go with evolution. Pasteur proved that he was unable to spontaneously generate life under very specific conditions (conditions that were rather unlike that of early Earth). Why do people against evolution always say things are “facts”? They rarely turn out to be true, and seem to have the unscientific purpose of halting all questioning of the validity of the supposed “fact”. Take, for example, the “biological fact that cross species reproduction cannot occur”. Clearly the writer of this missed out on the hybridization lectures during his high school (a drop-out perhaps?) and the recent media frenzy concerning a specimen found in Canada that was part Grizzly bear and part Polar bear.
Why is this mail all about Judaism, christianity, and Islam? Why not have some variety, as opposed to three religions that are basically the same?