Intelligent Design

[Ali]

You must have heard of Intelligent Design, right? No? Okay, let me explain briefly just what it is: Intelligent Design (I.D.) is a (snigger) "theory" put forward by some (snort) "scientists" to (choking! send help!) explain the universe without resorting to:

* intelligence,
* anything they learnt on their degree course,
* asking another scientist for help,
* asking a two year-old for help.

In a nutshell (one designed exclusively for the Earth Range by Almighty God and not some cheap, evolved knock-off) I.D. proponents argue that sure there's a lot of evidence to support evolution and yes scientific models of the universe's creation do seem to bear out pretty well in experiments and okay natural selection does appear to explain the many varied and wondrous shapes that nature has produced over the countless millions and billions of years but maybe that's what we're supposed to think, huh, huh? I.D. supporters point out that life is really, really complex and can cause headaches if thought about too hard so doesn't Occam's Razor indicate that it's much more likely that an omnipotent and omniscient divinity thought "Wait! What about a little horse that swims underwater?"

Intelligent Design is an offshoot of Paranoid Science, a branch of reasoning the major tenet of which is "But what if God is simply testing our faith?" Other examples of Paranoid Science's exhortations into the public sphere over the years have included:

* God put dinosaur bones on the planet because there's only room in Heaven for people who ignore the evidence of the eyes that God gave them, duh!,
* appendicitis is proof of God's displeasure since evolution should have evolved that dangly bit away aeons ago dumbass!,
* you don't believe in angels but dark matter is fine, yeah sure, whatever!,
* banjo music is proof of a higher power, there is no scientific explanation for it, none!

Fans of Paranoid Science (P.S. International Community of Friends) and I.D. (Worldwide IDiots) fear God. Opponents of the two theologically-derived, scientific-sounding claptrap theories fear God-botherers. If God-botherers contented themselves with bothering God everybody would be fine but since God has failed to react to their botherations over the years - further proof that He exists since He would never reveal He'd been listening so explain that away Mister Professor Bees Evolved From Snakes Ph.D! - they've moved onto a target that actually does get distracted by the lunacy: everyone else.

The IDiots want I.D. taught in schools and they've got a prominent supporter in the guise of George W. "The 'W' Stands For 'Woo! Yay! The Missing Link!'" Bush who endorsed teaching the subject on Monday. To be fair, regular scientists would also have no objection to Intelligent Design being taught in schools either. However, the former group want it taught as part of the science curriculum whereas the latter luminaries prefer it was interjected into a non-vocational course entitled "Successful Stand-Up Comedy".

Intelligent Design is backed by Christian groups. Their goal is to eventually relate every subject to religion in some way so as to make it impossible to think about anything other than God.

Sports
Jesus didn't play football, baseball, basketball, or tennis and neither will you! James and John did enjoy oily wrestling so that's okay though.

Woodworking
Jesus didn't play football, baseball, basketball, or tennis but he did enjoy his carpentry. If that's not God's way of saying "Chop down all the trees and build things that will be destroyed by tornadoes" then what is?

Sex Education
Sex education simply does not work. People are giving birth to non-Christians all over the place or, in some cases, taking preventative action to stop potential Christians from being born at all! That's very nearly almost close to being in the proximity of a strong set of binoculars through which can be seen a large printed sign on a distant moon alluding to an imaginary similarity between contraception and bludgeoning babies on the fontanelle with an ice pick. And there's no proof that babies come from sex anyway; it could all be a designed coincidence. Procreation through donating ribs - and only donating ribs - will soon be the sole "theory" of reproduction taught.

Computer Science
The binary system at the heart of any computer and the hexadecimal system somewhere in the lungs or spinal column are to be phased out. Digital devices will need to be switched over to an analogue system so as to properly implement the new U.S. Government-backed Cubit-Based processors. Base 2 and Base 16 will give way to Base 17 And A Bit Up To Around 22 Ish. Corruption of documents and sudden loss of files on the new operating systems prone to wild innacuracy is expected to be high. So no change there. Photorealistic rendering in games should be far superior; players of Half Eternity will really believe that they, as St Gordon Freeman, are battering the serpents in the Garden of Eden with their anti-gravity croziers. Spreadsheets will contain wild and fluctuating figures. Part of the costs of converting current machines to the new format will be met by Kenneth Lay from his personal fortune.

http://www.neonbubble.com/a/intelligent-design-explained

[infidel]

Intelligent Design is nothing more than another word for creation that the religious right coined in order to circumvent current laws.

[infidel]

20 years ago, I was tought that the earth was 2 million years old.Don't know what school you went to but 40 years ago I was taught the earth was 3 billion years old.

[SobaViolence]

Intelligent Design is nothing more than another word for creation that the religious right coined in order to circumvent current laws.

[El Nino]

In my state, they didn't teach evolution until about 1987.
Evolution was taught as only a theory, as was creation.

When scientists speak of "theories", they are talking about proposed or accepted explanations based on assembled evidence. To say something is "just a theory", may be true in an absolute sense. Many theories, like gravity (and please don't come back with "gravity is just a theory") for example, enjoy near universal acceptance due to the shear volume of evidence and success of the model. The term "theory" does not imply doubt about a phenomenon's existence.

[ms.peachy]

I was reading an article in yesterday's paper that is a bit frightening. All those creationism whackadoodles that have infiltrated the US school system? Well guess what - they're coming to England.

Here in the UK, the government actually pays for 'faith based' schools, which has alwyas confused me since moving here but whatever. What this means is that if you want your kid to go to a Catholic or Muslim or Jewish or CofE or Fundamentalist Christian school, they can, free. Because they don't have this 'seperation of church and state' thing here, but they do have to legally provide kids with an education. So now what's happening is that there's this growing Christian fundamentalist movement that is building schools for the express purpose of not teaching evolution. (Well, I am slightly exaggerating there...but not by much.)

[Space]

Intelligent Design is nothing more than another word for creation that the religious right coined in order to circumvent current laws.

i bet it sells better than the other werd starting this generation.

[ChrisLove]

I think there is room for the ID theory of the universe.....


I read a lot of stuff about physics and study a lot of stuff around quantum mechanics and superstring theories and it seems to me that while it is clear that the worlds religions are painfully wide of the mark in their creation theories, science, as we understand it, leaves room for a creator.

The following questions could be answered by intelligent design ie

- Why is the planck length the size it is?
- Why are the reletive strengths of the 4 forces of the universe (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electro magnetic and gravity) the way they are (if they were different, planets, stars etc could not form)
- Why do quantum particles fit into families


and many others...

It may be the case that science will ultimately explain these questions or it may be that the universe is the product of intelligent design. Now when I say 'maybe' I mean that there is a non-zero percentage chance of it - I dont think it likely but the difference between my way of looking at a potential creator and that adopted by religion is that as far as I know my "god" can not be ruled out by logical argument and thought.

[Señor Stino]

there was a good article about the invasion of ID in American schools in The Economist, last week (June 30th)

It is obvious that ID has absolutely nothing to rely on, except the flaws in other theories, which says nothing about your own.

I always ask myself, if there must be a creator, hence the complexity of our universe, shouldn't this creator be very complex on its own, therefore needing a supremecreator who would be even more complex =>...

[El Nino]

I think there is room for the ID theory of the universe.....

Sure, but you are getting into the blurry area between philosophy and theoretical quantum mechanics. If you want to discuss I.D. the place to do it would be a philosophy or religeon class. There is no room in a science class for theories that cannot be supported by evidence. Many moons ago I went to a catholic high school, and we were taught the theory of evolution in science class. But the teacher felt compelled to tell us that just because we may believe in evolution it does not negate the fact that there may have been a creator, or "unmoved mover". It really irked me, as we were being told the same things in the religeon class by his wife the religeon teacher. I have no problem with the idea of a theory of Intelligent Design, But In science class it's "just the facts mamm, just the facts". And Occam's Razor (Ali), goes something like this: when choosing between two competing theories to describe a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is the best. Do not make more assumptions than are necessary. I think that would tend to support evolution, rather than I.D.

[ChrisLove]

[QUOTE=El Nino] There is no room in a science class for theories that cannot be supported by evidence.[QUOTE]


I would agree with that, I just think its worth noting that when one starts to realise what a bizarre thing our universe is (with wave particle duality and reletivity and so on) and then considering we can have no idea about why it is here - then one should be open minded about why we are here.

[ms.peachy]

I would agree with that, I just think its worth noting that when one starts to realise what a bizarre thing our universe is (with wave particle duality and reletivity and so on) and then considering we can have no idea about why it is here - then one should be open minded about why we are here.
It is worth debating that question.

In a philosophy class.

[El Nino]

The proposal is to teach both theories, evolution and inteligent design.

I've got no problem with that, just keep I.D. out of science class.
Teach creation dogma in sunday school.
Leave science to the SCIENTISTS.

[infidel]

Sure they should teach ID and evolution in the science classroom but give it all that it deserves and nothing more, one sentence:
"Although there is no proof intelligent design and evolution are also theories on the origin of the humanity"

[yeahwho]

Creation was taught in US schools starting from day one. One thing evolutions never answers ........ why did it all happen??

But no need for a course on World Religions?

There's a need to study these World Religions to figure out the easiest way to obliterate them.

We need to also start a more serious look at studying Aliens. Not the movie (that would be like jerking off in class) but the real ones, the little green ones.

[QueenAdrock]

My aunt actually sent me a link on this today: http://ffrf.org/news/2005/bushID.php

If George Bush really wants to "expose people to different schools of thought," will he advocate teaching Darwinism in Sunday School? Shall we insert a chapter from Origin of the Species between Genesis 1 and 2?

The debate between the supernatural and natural world views ought to be
discussed, but not in science class. It's not as though today's schoolchildren
have been deprived of hearing about an "intelligent designer." There are
churches on every other corner and religious broadcasts across the radio and TV spectra. Let's talk about religion--the good and the bad of it--in a class on philosophy or current topics.

But not in science class. Science teachers should teach science. Those who
pretend "intelligent design" is science are missionaries, not teachers.

I agree. If parents want to their kids to learn about creationism, take them to church. That's what it's there for. Why does it have to be in schools? Science is taught in schools because there is adequate proof and substance, not just some book created by men millions of years ago. You can't teach faith.

[QueenAdrock]

Creation was taught in US schools starting from day one. One thing evolutions never answers ........ why did it all happen??


Neither does the Bible. Tell me, what is the meaning of life, Gizmo? Why did god decide to make life? Hmm? What's the purpose? For fun? Was he bored and needed a project? Who created god? Did he create himself?

I'm betting you don't know.

I think it's still ridiculous to believe in one or the other. I believe in evolution, and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, etc. etc. I believe that god created the particles that then created the Big Bang, and he gave life free-will, which lead to evolution.

However, Christians find this ridiculous, though I find it incredibly logical. I believe in the evidence science has shown, and for all the gaps I can't fill, I assume it is the power of a higher being. Science and religion shouldn't be fighting with each other, but most people believe one or the other and say it's not possible for it to be a little of both.

Christians the most though. Because you go to hell if you don't believe EEEEVERYTHING the man-made bible, written many years after the events, has to say. :rolleyes:

[Documad]

Does anyone even agree on what "Intelligent Design" is? Because mainstream Christians don't believe in Creationism. They're not that stupid. But mainstream Christians get scared that society is going down the crapper and they think "what's the harm of a little religious instruction in school?" The harm is that what the ID people want to teach kids is a literal OT creation story, and every Christian scholar I've read, including a couple of priests, will admit that the bible was written by men. Genesis isn't even consistent in itself, muchless consistent with other parts of the bible, and certainly not with science. I don't know how, but parents have to be educated on what ID is, because these goofballs already took over school boards--that's where they started their revolution decades ago. It's why textbooks are complete crap and focused on the lowest common denominator (aka Texas).

If southern schools were not teaching evolution as a science theory in 1986, that explains a whole lot about why the US is falling behind in science.


I would rather have kids study Aliens. It's one of the best action movies ever. And they could learn about how be like Ripley instead of being sheep.

[QueenAdrock]

I disagree. I couldn't watch Aliens when I was little. I saw the two little dots coming together and everyone screaming and being like "OH NOES!" and I had to turn off the VCR. :(

What about something more alien-friendly? Not quite E.T. but maybe towards the side of Gremlins?

[Documad]

Gremlins is a bad movie. But funny you should mention it. Because I keep thinking sisko's name is gismo and then when I'm typing it I think of the movie.

Aliens is a fabulous movie and you could learn lessons. About standing up for what you know to be true when all the other losers don't believe.

When I was in school, the "honors" political science class got to see Stalag 17. We almost never got to see movies. My school was starting to go downhill right before I graduated though because they had a "film study" option instead of English for the kids one class behind me.

[Documad]

Off topic, but when my niece was little, if she wouldn't go to bed on time, I'd pretend I was going to watch Jaws on the VCR and start to play the tape and the music starts right in the beginning and she would run to bed. :D

[yeahwho]

Why the Bible? Of all religions, how come the Bible? I know I'm drifting off from ID but I find ID to be another step away from ritin' readin' and rithmitic' which is another move away from the ability to use logic when dealing with religious prejudice....why is everybody so bent on dumbing down kids? Fuck lets teach them to use their minds, their hearts will follow their dreams, but without a developed mind, dreams can be pretty vacant.

[Medellia]

Creation was taught in US schools starting from day one. One thing evolutions never answers ........ why did it all happen??
Do we really need to know why? I like having a little mystery.

PS-Doc, I used to have a kitty named gizmo when I was about five, so it's always bugged me when people call him that.

[Ali]

If George Bush really wants to "expose people to different schools of thought," will he advocate teaching Darwinism in Sunday School? Shall we insert a chapter from Origin of the Species between Genesis 1 and 2? :p Don't be ridiculous!

That would be, like, sticking to one standard!!!

Hey, Queenie... ;)

[Funkaloyd]

Why are the reletive strengths of the 4 forces of the universe (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electro magnetic and gravity) the way they are (if they were different, planets, stars etc could not form)
You mean to say that if the Universe were different, then the Universe would be different?!

[Ali]

You mean to say that if the Universe were different, then the Universe would be different?!No, he's saying that it just wouldn't be the same.

Which it isn't.

[ChrisLove]

You mean to say that if the Universe were different, then the Universe would be different?!
LOL in a way but its more that in 99.999999% of potential universes, some physicists reckon everything would just have been plasma and nothingness but for some reason the exact conditions exist to create atomic structures, planets, solar systems, life etc.

[sam i am]

there was a good article about the invasion of ID in American schools in The Economist, last week (June 30th)

It is obvious that ID has absolutely nothing to rely on, except the flaws in other theories, which says nothing about your own.

I always ask myself, if there must be a creator, hence the complexity of our universe, shouldn't this creator be very complex on its own, therefore needing a supremecreator who would be even more complex =>...

This is funny. Sounds like liberalism, socialism, and communism to me, as explained by those on these message boards. Only one person EVER comes up with any affirmative ideas of how to expound and move liberalism forward, and that's D_Raay : the rest of you just hurl bombs at Bush or Blair and break yoiur arms patting yourselves on the back about how superior you are.

[sam i am]

We need to also start a more serious look at studying Aliens. Not the movie (that would be like jerking off in class) but the real ones, the little green ones.


Bwwwwaahhahahahahahaah! LOL! ROTF! :D

WTG, yeahwho!

[sam i am]

not just some book created by men millions of years ago. You can't teach faith.

Try within the past 7000 years. We believe in the Hittites, even though there's very little proof of their culture.

BTW, you CAN teach faith, else no child would ever have faith. Or is faith inherently biological? hmmmmmm....things to ponder....

[sam i am]

Neither does the Bible. Tell me, what is the meaning of life, Gizmo? Why did god decide to make life? Hmm? What's the purpose? For fun? Was he bored and needed a project? Who created god? Did he create himself?

I'm betting you don't know.

I think it's still ridiculous to believe in one or the other. I believe in evolution, and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, etc. etc. I believe that god created the particles that then created the Big Bang, and he gave life free-will, which lead to evolution.

However, Christians find this ridiculous, though I find it incredibly logical. I believe in the evidence science has shown, and for all the gaps I can't fill, I assume it is the power of a higher being. Science and religion shouldn't be fighting with each other, but most people believe one or the other and say it's not possible for it to be a little of both.

Christians the most though. Because you go to hell if you don't believe EEEEVERYTHING the man-made bible, written many years after the events, has to say. :rolleyes:

I actually believe much the same thing as you, Queen, and consider myself a solid Christian. God encourages us to test our faith. There are numerous occasions where men and women have questions for God and have little or no faith, yet are brought about by God's intervention.

The point of my missive here, however, is to honor what you believe and don't let bigoted Christians turn you off : look for like-minded people and affirm your intuitive reasoning - that's what I did. (y)

[sam i am]

Does anyone even agree on what "Intelligent Design" is? Because mainstream Christians don't believe in Creationism. They're not that stupid. But mainstream Christians get scared that society is going down the crapper and they think "what's the harm of a little religious instruction in school?" The harm is that what the ID people want to teach kids is a literal OT creation story, and every Christian scholar I've read, including a couple of priests, will admit that the bible was written by men. Genesis isn't even consistent in itself, muchless consistent with other parts of the bible, and certainly not with science. I don't know how, but parents have to be educated on what ID is, because these goofballs already took over school boards--that's where they started their revolution decades ago. It's why textbooks are complete crap and focused on the lowest common denominator (aka Texas).

If southern schools were not teaching evolution as a science theory in 1986, that explains a whole lot about why the US is falling behind in science.


I would rather have kids study Aliens. It's one of the best action movies ever. And they could learn about how be like Ripley instead of being sheep.

Quick, simple way Genesis agrees with evolutionary science. Genesis states that God's time is not like our time. Genesis states there were 7 "days" for creation. Approximate age of the Universe (within a few billion years, as far science is willing to go right now generally) is 7-12 billion years old. There are strong proponenets for both an "old" universe (10-12 billion years old) and a "young" universe (approx. 5-8 billion years old). So, strictly interpretatively, Genesis could EASILY fit in the scientific framework, if you just take the simple step that God's "time" could mean a billion years for each of the "days" in the Creation.

[El Nino]

Sure they should teach ID and evolution in the science classroom but give it all that it deserves and nothing more, one sentence:
"Although there is no proof intelligent design and evolution are also theories on the origin of the humanity"

I'm sorry, I'm probably misunderstanding you here. But your post seems to imply that the theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution are somehow equal in scientific merit, with regards to the origins of life. Evolution belongs in science class as it is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. Intelligent design is not at all scientific and is a seperate issue for a seperate class.

Like I said though, I was probably misunderstanding......

[racer5.0stang]

Neither does the Bible. Tell me, what is the meaning of life, Gizmo? Why did god decide to make life? Hmm? What's the purpose? For fun? Was he bored and needed a project? Who created god? Did he create himself?

In order for God to be God, he (the Bible describes him as being male) would have no begining nor end.

Christians the most though. Because you go to hell if you don't believe EEEEVERYTHING the man-made bible, written many years after the events, has to say.

According to the Bible, the only thing you MUST do is believe that Jesus Christ in the Son of God and that he lived, died, and was resurrected. Believing on him is what saves you from spending eternity in hell.

I think it's still ridiculous to believe in one or the other. I believe in evolution, and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, etc. etc. I believe that god created the particles that then created the Big Bang, and he gave life free-will, which lead to evolution.

In order to believe this to be true, one must also believe that the Bible is wrong. If God just started the process and left it up to "evolution" then there would be no futher input from him and he would have no need in sending his Son to die for OUR sins. If the bible is not entirely true, then logically, you have no basis on your beliefs as you have stated.

Quick, simple way Genesis agrees with evolutionary science. Genesis states that God's time is not like our time. Genesis states there were 7 "days" for creation. Approximate age of the Universe (within a few billion years, as far science is willing to go right now generally) is 7-12 billion years old. There are strong proponenets for both an "old" universe (10-12 billion years old) and a "young" universe (approx. 5-8 billion years old). So, strictly interpretatively, Genesis could EASILY fit in the scientific framework, if you just take the simple step that God's "time" could mean a billion years for each of the "days" in the Creation.

There is no creative act recorded between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. These verses simply state that God created the heaven and earth and then describes the condition of the earth before he created life on it. "In the beginning" as stated in verse one, does not give an exact time as to when the heaven and earth were created. Verse two describes the earth as without form and darkness covered it. In the book of Jeremiah 4:23-26, these verses also talk about the earth in this present state of darkness. The earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. There are only three creative acts described in Chapter 1 which are the heavens and the earth, animal life, and human life. The sun and moon were created "in the beginning". The light (Genesis 1:3) came from the sun which was diffused by a vapour or cloud cover. Which explains the darkness and the ice age. Once this cloud cover was removed the sun was able to shine upon the earth. As far as one "day" being millions of years, in Genesis 1:5, God called the light Day and the darkness night. We know this to be 24 hours which equals one day.

I agree. If parents want to their kids to learn about creationism, take them to church. That's what it's there for. Why does it have to be in schools?

Talk about confusion. God created man at church and at school man evolved from pond scum. See my point?

Science is taught in schools because there is adequate proof and substance,

No there isn't. Science, when it comes to how life started etc. creates more questions than answers.

not just some book created by men millions of years ago.

I'm sure it wasn't that long ago.

You can't teach faith.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 10:17

[Documad]

Quick, simple way Genesis agrees with evolutionary science. Genesis states that God's time is not like our time. Genesis states there were 7 "days" for creation. Approximate age of the Universe (within a few billion years, as far science is willing to go right now generally) is 7-12 billion years old. There are strong proponenets for both an "old" universe (10-12 billion years old) and a "young" universe (approx. 5-8 billion years old). So, strictly interpretatively, Genesis could EASILY fit in the scientific framework, if you just take the simple step that God's "time" could mean a billion years for each of the "days" in the Creation.
Yeah, my mom told me that when I was a kid. But then the clock somehow slows down so that Noah and Moses get to live a really long time. :p That's the easy part.

I'm more distressed by all the other things that make no sense. It's a silly story all the way around, cobbled together from other myths and legends with a new spin. But none of that is science.

[yeahwho]

You know when I was living with my brother we got a knock on the door one day and it was some of these dapper dudes from the Church down the block coming by to tell us the good news about the lord.

Well, we were being our usual skeptical punkish selves when the self proclaimed "college graduate" man of God said, "Look at it purely from a mathematical perspective, in all this universe the odds of one tiny living cell coming into it's own is 5 to the 10,000 power x 1 million" now where this guy came up with that number was pretty amazing, actually kind of funny. He said how do you guys account for that to happen without divine creation? My brother blurted out, without skipping a beat, "I'll take those odds anyday over the mathematical odds that a "Magical Sky Fairy" created that one cell.

He's never harmed a soul in his life, my brother, his spirituality glows. Why are there so many assholes in this world?

[Documad]

My mom lives in a suburb near both a Morman church and a Jehovah's Witness meeting hall. They both send guys in black suits on bikes. My mom is never rude. She talks to them. She's elderly and gets a little lonely.

They're wasting their time though. She will never believe.

[Funkaloyd]

in 99.999999% of potential universes, some physicists reckon everything would just have been plasma and nothingness but for some reason the exact conditions exist to create atomic structures, planets, solar systems, life etc.Maybe our laws of phsysics and biology wouldn't apply, and an incomprehensible race of plasma beings would be in our place, wondering why the Universe is so perfectly fitted to them.

[ChrisLove]

In order for God to be God, he (the Bible describes him as being male) would have no begining nor end.



I find this very difficult. You suggest an infinite time scale, in which at some point in the middle God thought he would create the universe/man etc.

But an infinite time scale has no middle as such (or any other point defined in relation to its start or finish) so at what point do we exist on Gods timeline. If time for God is inifinite, then Man must have been created after the passing of an infinite amount of time from the nonexistent day one - ie never. But here we are? I think this is probably a paradox of some sort but Im buggered if I can get my head around it.

Science seems to have resolved this problem a bit with big bang because it shows time as a dimension which like the dimensions of space has not always existed but instead was created by the bang.

Maybe god coud act in a simular way but we are talking about him existing without time - and again Im buggered if I can get my head around that either (but then I suspose thats the point).

hmm interesting - Im going to have lie down now.

[ChrisLove]

Maybe our laws of phsysics and biology wouldn't apply, and an incomprehensible race of plasma beings would be in our place, wondering why the Universe is so perfectly fitted to them.

Fair point

[Señor Stino]

This is funny. Sounds like liberalism, socialism, and communism to me, as explained by those on these message boards. Only one person EVER comes up with any affirmative ideas of how to expound and move liberalism forward, and that's D_Raay : the rest of you just hurl bombs at Bush or Blair and break yoiur arms patting yourselves on the back about how superior you are.

sorry sam, i don't understand your comment : (

i only tried to follow the IDbeliever's logic as if something complex like the planet earth, the universe, life on those planets MUST be "created" by a divine being , not for any reason but the complexity and our lack of understanding.

i find that ridiculous, as if to say :"i don't understand this, so i'll start believing in something i don't understand either, but now i'm part of a group of believers who all shut down their brains, it's better not to think"

because that is what you are looking for, right? "like-minded people and affirm your intuitive reasoning". might as well join a cult.

[QueenAdrock]

According to the Bible, the only thing you MUST do is believe that Jesus Christ in the Son of God and that he lived, died, and was resurrected. Believing on him is what saves you from spending eternity in hell.

Thank you so much. I had no idea a Christian would come on this board and tell me this. I applaud you for showing me the way, for not being another Christian cliche, but providing something of substance. BRA-VO. :rolleyes:

In order to believe this to be true, one must also believe that the Bible is wrong. If God just started the process and left it up to "evolution" then there would be no futher input from him and he would have no need in sending his Son to die for OUR sins. If the bible is not entirely true, then logically, you have no basis on your beliefs as you have stated.

Who said I believed in the Bible? Let me clarify if my first post was not clear enough: The bible is total B.S. in my opinion. A bunch of stories about a bunch of nobodies, written by a bunch of nobodies. I believe in what I want to believe, I create the basis for my beliefs, and I don't follow anyone. I use my own brain to come up with my own conclusions, and I don't blindly follow some retarded book to TELL ME what to believe.

I take ideas of there being a higher being, and evolution. I do not believe that Jesus came and died for my sins, though I do believe there is a god. I take a little from some religious ideas, and add to my ideas of evolution to create Dianaism. It's what I believe, and if people don't like the fact that I don't follow the sheep-like masses, too bad.

No there isn't. Science, when it comes to how life started etc. creates more questions than answers.

HAHAHA, AND "FAITH" DOESN'T? Yes, you question science. You don't question religion, even the glaring contradictions, because you're taught not to. They say "this is the truth, believe it or go to hell". There's no such thing as questions in religion, I agree. They won't allow them.


I'm sure it wasn't that long ago.
One thing you are correct about. I meant to type "thousands".

But for the future, don't reply to my posts with bible quotes. Though they probably comfort you and make you think you have a "solid" argument, it does nothing to convince those who don't believe in it. It's like if I held up a hand-made book that someone created when they were 5 and said "Look. He wrote that God talked to him that day. And that he told him to steal ice cream. So stealing ice cream is okay, because it's written down." Yeah, it can say anything it wants to. But it was created by a human, and humans lie. Thus, me believing majority of it is bullshit, aside from historical evidence that support several stories of the Old Testement.

[QueenAdrock]

The point of my missive here, however, is to honor what you believe and don't let bigoted Christians turn you off : look for like-minded people and affirm your intuitive reasoning - that's what I did. (y)

Thanks, Sam. :)

I don't agree with the absolutism that often goes along with Christianity; I've been dating a Jew for the past 4 years and he has told me that their religion teaches them to constantly question anything they may be told. That they don't have a clear answer to what happens after life, but they're not concerned; their main concern is to focus on THIS world, and not to worry about the afterlife. Do a good job and be a good person on this world, nothing else matters.

I also agree with their ideas on abortion (the mother's life is more important than the babies, until the baby is 50% outside of the mother, then one can not choose one life over the other). So, if a mother's life is in danger, or something goes wrong, abortion is allowed. (y)

I don't know if I'd convert to Judaism, but from what I can see, they're people who constantly question, make lots of money, and vote liberally. Sounds good to me. ;)

[sam i am]

But it was created by a human, and humans lie.

If you're human, you lie. Thus no one should believe anything amyone ever syas or writes?

Please.

Try again, Queen. You can do better.

[QueenAdrock]

Note the word "created". I'm not going to believe in a lot of things that humans create. Especially when writing a book based on history, years after the fact, one is more susceptible to lie and/or exaggerate. It is not a journal-like book, it's compiled of stories written by humans, to "tell the legend". Those who wrote it weren't alive when it had happened. So when I hear "Jesus walked on water," that is unexplainable to me, and thus I believe it is a lie, or an explainable exaggeration. I don't believe in miracles.

When you also hear things, such as the patriarchs having had impossibly long life spans, and time lines being all fucked up, the Queen of Sheba story (which states something about the spice trade, when it was years prior to the spice trade), mentioning of camels when they were undomesticated at that time, this confirms the belief of them lying. It's not to say that it's all lies, but that it's definitely not 100% correct. And I'm not going to believe in a book that tells me I'll go to hell if I don't believe every word as the gospel truth when it's obvious it's not all truth.

[Humiliation]

No one can circumvent current laws. There had to be a Creator. Evolution was invented before Micro Bioligy was a reality. The human eye is way too complex to have evolved from a blob.

20 years ago, I was tought that the earth was 2 million years old.

Now kids are being tought that the earth is billions of years old. The evolutonists have discovered that it takes more time to explain this crap.
The first organisms were bacteria, single celled organisms. Slowly over time one bacteria through a reaction (right genetic code of each or chemical reaction) or mutation and had the ability to split that one cell into 2 making it more efficient thus helping it survive and/or reproduce. So it and it's offspring had a larger advantage over the single celled organisms so they either died off or became more complex through another reaction/mutation whether that be being to split into more cells or the single cell becoming more complex. This continued such as the 2 celled organism being able to split into 3 cells and over millions (billions) of years their were organisms with millions of cells.

A cell is much more complex than just a "blob". Sure physically it resembles a blob but somehow many "blobs" make up our entire body. Don't believe me? Get a good microscope and a drop of blood with pink dye in it and look at it.

[sam i am]

Note the word "created". I'm not going to believe in a lot of things that humans create. Especially when writing a book based on history, years after the fact, one is more susceptible to lie and/or exaggerate. It is not a journal-like book, it's compiled of stories written by humans, to "tell the legend". Those who wrote it weren't alive when it had happened. So when I hear "Jesus walked on water," that is unexplainable to me, and thus I believe it is a lie, or an explainable exaggeration. I don't believe in miracles.

When you also hear things, such as the patriarchs having had impossibly long life spans, and time lines being all fucked up, the Queen of Sheba story (which states something about the spice trade, when it was years prior to the spice trade), mentioning of camels when they were undomesticated at that time, this confirms the belief of them lying. It's not to say that it's all lies, but that it's definitely not 100% correct. And I'm not going to believe in a book that tells me I'll go to hell if I don't believe every word as the gospel truth when it's obvious it's not all truth.

Debatably, some of the major players of the New Testament WERE around and wrote at the time of Jesus' life : Saul/Paul, Matthew, Luke, etc.

Next, MOST primary sources are FAR more biased and filled with error than secondary or tertiary sources. Historians thrive on investigating and rewriting history based on new evidence and archaeology, etc. If Hitler had written an account of WWII, I'm sure it would have come out quite differently than what Anne Frank wrote contemporaneously. And, both accounts would have differed from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is voluminous in it's notes and documentation. I've even just finished reading another great account, written by Franz Magenheimer, that refutes, contradicts, and clarifies many of the "truths" that others before him have come up with. I'm sure, in another 1000 years, the "story" of WWII will look, feel, and sound MUCH different from what we perceive it to be today.

History and ideology are NOT static forces in the universe : they are pliable and always being twisted and turned for whoever is writings' sake. One thing that CAN be said about our current versions of the Bible, due to the archaeological EVIDENCE of the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly, is that it is 99.9% accurate DOWN TO THE LETTER. There has NEVER, throughout written history, been such a correlation between the oldest accounts and current accounts of written material.

So, there's some more information to ponder and I hope, again, you don't just dismiss, out of hand, that there is far more to investigate and disprove than there is to just simply dismiss out of lack of information.

[STANKY808]

Right up there with the brothers Grimm.

[racer5.0stang]

Note the word "created". I'm not going to believe in a lot of things that humans create. Especially when writing a book based on history, years after the fact, one is more susceptible to lie and/or exaggerate. It is not a journal-like book, it's compiled of stories written by humans, to "tell the legend". Those who wrote it weren't alive when it had happened. So when I hear "Jesus walked on water," that is unexplainable to me, and thus I believe it is a lie, or an explainable exaggeration. I don't believe in miracles.

Being that your beloved Darwin was a man, would it be safe to assume that he could have lied about his theory?

Ever heard about someone surviving a horrific car accident without a scratch? I guess since you nor the investigating officers could explain how the person was unharmed, that it did not happen.

[racer5.0stang]

Thanks, Sam. :)

I don't agree with the absolutism that often goes along with Christianity; I've been dating a Jew for the past 4 years and he has told me that their religion teaches them to constantly question anything they may be told. That they don't have a clear answer to what happens after life, but they're not concerned; their main concern is to focus on THIS world, and not to worry about the afterlife. Do a good job and be a good person on this world, nothing else matters.

He obviously is not an orthodox Jew.

Is a from a true Jewish background or did he convert?

[QueenAdrock]

Being that your beloved Darwin was a man, would it be safe to assume that he could have lied about his theory?

Ever heard about someone surviving a horrific car accident without a scratch? I guess since you nor the investigating officers could explain how the person was unharmed, that it did not happen.

Lied about his theory? How the hell do you lie about an IDEA? It's a thought! And his backing for his idea isn't really hard to see that it's true; he said that he believed in Natural Selection, that one must inevitably kill another in order to survive, and that this breeds only the stronger animals. That's not a lie, you see it every day. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime, it does a world of good.

And yeah, I've heard of someone surviving a horrific car accident. And it is explainable. Maybe not of someone of my or the police officer's intelligence and expertise, but if the car accident was video-taped from all angles and given to perhaps a physicist, he could explain how momentum, gravitational pull, speed, body weight, car weight, had an impact on the situation. Just because YOU can't explain things doesn't mean they're "unexplainable".

And my boyfriend is not orthodox Jewish. Orthodox's are pretty crazy, actually. He's conservative Jewish (or at least his father is, Wayne's somewhat skeptical of religion so he's mostly Jewish in name only). And yes, he was born into the religion. There's more than one branch of Judaism, and his tells him that he's allowed to question all that he comes into contact with, which I applaud it for.

[Ali]

Being that your beloved Darwin was a man, would it be safe to assume that he could have lied about his theory?.Being that your beloved Jesus was a man, as were his disciples, would it be safe to assume that they could have lied about him rising from the dead after his crucifixion?

They had everything to gain from this story, as you can see...

[Humiliation]

Evolution hardly disproves god, only the bible, the old testament in particular. But you could also say that god created evolution. What i do find stupid however is how people don't believe in evolution but believe in a being above the physical plane who created everything. At least with evolution we have some pretty hard evidence

[Humiliation]

Try within the past 7000 years. We believe in the Hittites, even though there's very little proof of their culture.

BTW, you CAN teach faith, else no child would ever have faith. Or is faith inherently biological? hmmmmmm....things to ponder....
You say that like it is a bad thing

[racer5.0stang]

But you could also say that god created evolution.

You could say that but you would have no basis for that belief.

What i do find stupid however is how people don't believe in evolution but believe in a being above the physical plane who created everything.

What I find stupid is when people would rather believe that they evolved from an ape with no purpose other than to survive.

At least with evolution we have some pretty hard evidence

Like micro evolution? Get real.

Or maybe because you have experienced an ape evolve into a human or maybe you have found the missing link.

Your "hard evidence" is nothing more than theories and assumptions.

Being that your beloved Jesus was a man, as were his disciples, would it be safe to assume that they could have lied about him rising from the dead after his crucifixion?

If that were the case, then His story would have been disproven by now and we would not be having this conversation. It has been 1900 years since the New Testament was written.

And yeah, I've heard of someone surviving a horrific car accident. And it is explainable. Maybe not of someone of my or the police officer's intelligence and expertise, but if the car accident was video-taped from all angles and given to perhaps a physicist, he could explain how momentum, gravitational pull, speed, body weight, car weight, had an impact on the situation. Just because YOU can't explain things doesn't mean they're "unexplainable".

You missed my point. You said that if you could not explain something that you would not believe it. So I asked about the automobile accident scenerio which you proceeded to say that someone should be able to figure it out. My point was if your beliefs depended on you understanding the cause and effect, then you could not believe that said person could walk away from the car accident unscathed.

Lied about his theory? How the hell do you lie about an IDEA? It's a thought!

More like lied about the "evidence" to support his idea of evolution through natural selection.

They had everything to gain from this story, as you can see...

So does every historian, scientist etc..

[sam i am]

Being that your beloved Jesus was a man, as were his disciples, would it be safe to assume that they could have lied about him rising from the dead after his crucifixion?

They had everything to gain from this story, as you can see...

Everything to gain?

They were vilified, hunted down, and cruelly murdered for their beliefs.

They had EVERY reason to recant their "crazy" stories, but they didn't. That says a lot more about their character than if they had changed their minds, fitted in, and disbelieved what they felt to be true.

I don't mind the questioning inherent in this thread, but at least get your facts correct.

[Funkaloyd]

Or maybe because you have experienced an ape evolve into a human or maybe you have found the missing link.
I'd just love you to give us a description of what this "missing link" is, in your own words if possible.

[QueenAdrock]

You missed my point. You said that if you could not explain something that you would not believe it. So I asked about the automobile accident scenerio which you proceeded to say that someone should be able to figure it out. My point was if your beliefs depended on you understanding the cause and effect, then you could not believe that said person could walk away from the car accident unscathed.


I never once said that if I wasn't able to explain it, it is untrue. There's a lot that I can't explain, but I know there is an explanation out there from people with better expertise. I can't explain the orbit of the earth around the sun. Does that mean I don't believe that the earth rotates around the sun? No, because there IS someone who can explain it, and that's where my bases of "truth vs. lie" stands. And the car accident? Not someone "should" be able to figure it out, someone CAN figure it out. If he is armed with all the information about the automobile accident, he can use the laws of science to a tee to describe how the person was unharmed.

I said "So when I hear "Jesus walked on water," that is unexplainable to me, and thus I believe it is a lie, or an explainable exaggeration." If someone with scientific expertise can explain it, then it can have truth in my book. And walking on water IS unexplainable by science. Have you tried to walk on water? Are you physically able to do it? No? Well, what's the explanation for this one? Science says this is impossible.

I don't think you understand my position that if science can't explain it, it's shit. Science rules the laws of our universe, so when something magically breaks that law, I believe it's a lie. Tell me, do you believe humans can fly? If someone came up to you and said that they flew all by themselves, with no mechanical help, would you say "Oh yeah, sure, I can see that happening. You're a special guy, I'm sure you could figure out how to do it." OR would you say "Geez. Based on the laws of this earth, you aren't able to do that."?

How about if someone came up to you now and said they turned water into wine? Would you say they're full of it, or would you say that it's impossible? It's not allowed by science.

I think the big difference between us, is you believe Jesus was some great guy who could magically break all the laws in this universe. I however, use scientific logic that tells me "No one else is able to, why's he so special?" Yeah, I think Jesus was a nice guy who got a raw deal. But that's it. I don't think he's some magical superhero that people make him out to be. I like to think logically and use evidence we have in this world, and some people like to believe a thousands-of-years old book. Whatever, to each his own, I suppose.

More like lied about the "evidence" to support his idea of evolution through natural selection.

Yeah, I don't get this either. How can you LIE about something that's easily seen everyday in nature? Like I said, go watch the discovery channel. In the wild, animals kill others to survive. Do you think that the weaker ones get away from the strong animals? No, they're killed and eaten. I don't understand how you can lie about something that is that obvious...all you have to do is spend a day in the forest and you can see all this for yourself.

[QueenAdrock]

I'd just love you to give us a description of what this "missing link" is, in your own words if possible.

Yeah, I thought there was a "missing link," actually. When I asked my anthropology professor about the missing link last semester, he said there really wasn't such a thing, that there's pretty much a continual flowing line, and showed it to me.

Interesting fact.

[racer5.0stang]

Yeah, I thought there was a "missing link," actually. When I asked my anthropology professor about the missing link last semester, he said there really wasn't such a thing, that there's pretty much a continual flowing line, and showed it to me.

If there is all this "hard evidence" to support evolution, the big bang, and whatever else science wants to say how life began and why we are here, then why are they still theories and not fact?

I think the big difference between us, is you believe Jesus was some great guy who could magically break all the laws in this universe. I however, use scientific logic that tells me "No one else is able to, why's he so special?" Yeah, I think Jesus was a nice guy who got a raw deal. But that's it. I don't think he's some magical superhero that people make him out to be. I like to think logically and use evidence we have in this world, and some people like to believe a thousands-of-years old book. Whatever, to each his own, I suppose.

No, I happen to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and he is the only hope that this world has. I too like to think logically but I also know that there are things in this world that man nor logic can explain.

The problem is that people do not want to believe in a god because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

If the bible is in fact a lie and there is no god, then all I have lost is my time believing that there is. But if the bible is the truth and there is a god then my beliefs will not be in vain, but alot of people are going to be very disapointed to say the least.

It's not allowed by science.

Just because man cannot explain something through science does not mean that science cannot explain it. Man just has not reached that point in knowledge. Fifty years ago man said that we would not be able to reach space. The Orville brothers constructed the first airplane that man said would never fly.

Yeah, I don't get this either. How can you LIE about something that's easily seen everyday in nature?

When was the last time you witnessed macro evolution?

I'd just love you to give us a description of what this "missing link" is, in your own words if possible.

It simply is a term used to link one species to the next. example ape---->man

[QueenAdrock]

If there is all this "hard evidence" to support evolution, the big bang, and whatever else science wants to say how life began and why we are here, then why are they still theories and not fact?

Perhaps because you don't understand what a theory is. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

1: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)

Just because man cannot explain something through science does not mean that science cannot explain it.

So are you implying that Jesus's walking on water can be explained through science? Because if so, then it's not a miracle.


When was the last time you witnessed macro evolution?

When was the last time I said that I whole-heartedly believed in macro-evolution? There are some things that I can't answer, but I do see that evolution does occur. So when a scientist with a PhD from a respectable university tells me that macro-evolution occurs, I'm likely to believe him, with the combination of me seeing other forms of evolution, and him being a credible source for me. I don't believe scientists lie about their findings, because it's easy to disprove in the scientific world; if they ever did lie about their findings, it would soon be disproven. That doesn't mean I blindly follow the idea of macro-evolution 100%, if it is disproven, I will look for another logical explanation.

But tell me, did you witness god's "creation"? Were you there to witness Adam's rib be taken out to make Eve? Did you see this? No? So there you go. You follow your book, I'll follow my science.

[QueenAdrock]

The problem is that people do not want to believe in a god because they do not want to be held accountable for their actions.

If the bible is in fact a lie and there is no god, then all I have lost is my time believing that there is. But if the bible is the truth and there is a god then my beliefs will not be in vain, but alot of people are going to be very disapointed to say the least.

I believe in god, who said I didn't? Just because I think the bible is a lie doesn't mean there "is no god". Believe it or not, MANY people think the bible is bullshit, and believe there is a *different* NON-Christian god! *gasp!*

And I agree with your theory, I believe it's called Pascal's Theory. You have much to gain in the afterlife if your theory is correct, and nothing to lose if you're wrong; but if you don't believe and you're right, you've gained nothing, and if you don't believe and you're wrong, there's infinite consequences.

But that falls under the "believing just for believing," or believing out of fear. I don't think people should be in a religion because they fear the afterlife, I think they should be in a religion because they BELIEVE it. I'll look into religion once I find a credible one that I believe in, and not just say I believe in god because I fear the consequences of not doing so.

[bb_bboy]

Science rules the laws of our universe, so when something magically breaks that law, I believe it's a lie.

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic here, but I think that it is more like "science understands/interprets/explains the laws of our universe ..." Do you see what I mean?

[QueenAdrock]

Same difference. You know what I meant.

[bb_bboy]

Fuck that.

[QueenAdrock]

:confused:

[bb_bboy]

:D

[QueenAdrock]

:mad:







































:p

[P of R]

The question "why" is to me completely pointless. I just find it really homocentric.

Do we have a greater purpose? Not really, in my humble opinion. Survive and evolve perhaps.

And what's this thing about the human eye being to advanced for evolution. There's lots of animals eyes that are far more complex than ours.

[bb_bboy]

Purpose is more or less just an idea that we've invented for ourselves - unless you do believe in a higher consciousness for which we might exist. Otherwise it is just an abstract idea created because of nothing more than our ability to think of it.

The discussion of the human eye (or any eye) as being designed unit for unit vs. evolving over time really makes no sense to me. It is complex either way - whether it happened by biological chance or was part of a grand design seems rather, as you said, pointless.

[Qdrop]

why do you people still argue with Racer about evolution?

he has been bashed over the head with sound logic, ample evidence and explaniation, valid counters to all his irrational beliefs and statments...SOOO many fucking times.

yet, whenever a thread like this pops up......he just reverts back to his initial line of questioning and posturing...as if all his previous thrashings never took place.
it's like fucking Groundhog day with him....

have you people ever seen Million Dollar Baby?
you know that little punk boxer kid that keeps coming to the gym....even though he's awful....but he just won't listen to reason?
and then other fighters pick on him, and finally just get him in the ring and fucking thrash him to prove to him how bad he is?

but yet, a month later....he comes back....just as ridiculously irrational and stubborn as before...and just keeps going...

yeah....you see where i'm goin with this...

why do people waste thier time?


he is an unsinkable rubber duck, cognitively set in his ways....unable to progress or let go.
just let him be....

[Humiliation]

You could say that but you would have no basis for that belief.
I was only saying you could still be christian and believe in evolution.


What I find stupid is when people would rather believe that they evolved from an ape with no purpose other than to survive.
Maybe you''re just stupid then. We've found the remains of "half humans" which are slowly changing into humans from apes. Also we're 99% (or near enough i can't remember) the same genetically. We're not THAT different

Or maybe because you have experienced an ape evolve into a human or maybe you have found the missing link.

Your "hard evidence" is nothing more than theories and assumptions.


Look at the Galapagos dipshit. ANiamsl there have evolved to better suit their surroundings.

And at any rate we have more evidence than your theorie of a "higher being".

[Funkaloyd]

I believe it's called Pascal's Theory. You have much to gain in the afterlife if your theory is correct, and nothing to lose if you're wrong; but if you don't believe and you're right, you've gained nothing, and if you don't believe and you're wrong, there's infinite consequences.

I had a nightmare last night, in which I discovered that the Jews were the right ones, and had been right all along. It suddenly hit me that, having been an atheist for several years, my life would now be horrible, and my afterlife worse. I woke up feeling more anxious and frightened than I have been in a long time. No kidding.

Anyway, the problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that there are only two choices: belief and disbelief. But there are numerous religions to chose from, and as far as I know none of them allow for the belief in just any god. Certainly not Judaism.

In my dream, Racer would have had the same problem as me, because despite his belief in god, he was still wrong. In fact, it would be worse for Racer: he would have had wasted his time in a false religion only to be punished by YHWH, whereas I would be able to endure my eternal torture secure in the knowledge that I hadn't wasted every Sunday.

[EN[i]GMA]

How could this thread have gone on so long without a posting of: http://www.venganza.org/

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.



Challenge to Racer: Prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the Universe.

[QueenAdrock]

That God sounds delicious. (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

That God sounds delicious. (y)

Read this as well: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[sam i am]

There's a lot that I can't explain, but I know there is an explanation out there from people with better expertise. No, because there IS someone who can explain it, and that's where my bases of "truth vs. lie" stands.

VERY interesting logic. Follow it to it's conclusion :

At various points in the history of science, "scientists" (so called "experts") could, with all science behind them, explain that the world was flat, or that the heart was the center of our intelligence, or that the sun rotated around the earth.

One of the problems with science is that it is constantly evolving to meet new technology or observation. It has no way to quantify or measure emotion or aspiration or truly unexplainable phenomena.

You have FAITH that those with more "knowledge" are able to explain things "to a tee," but you have no way of KNOWING, yourself, if these things are true. You BELIEVE them to be true because someone else can explain them to you. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me, with scientists as the priests and yourself as the flock, blindly following along.

See, we're really not all that different, utlizing your "logic?"

Just some more to ponder in this debate.

[QueenAdrock]

No, if you read my post, I said I never take anything to heart 100%, that I look at things with a skeptical eye, and only believe things that sound logical to me until they can be proven differently.

That, by no means, is "blindly following." If I said "DARWIN IS RIGHT AND YOU ALL ARE WRONG, EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO EVERYTHING HE HAS TO SAY BECAUSE HE IS INFALLIBLE LOL" then that statement would be justified.

"I'm likely to believe [a scientist's theory], with the combination of me seeing other forms of evolution, and him being a credible source for me. I don't believe scientists lie about their findings, because it's easy to disprove in the scientific world; if they ever did lie about their findings, it would soon be disproven. That doesn't mean I blindly follow the idea of macro-evolution 100%, if it is disproven, I will look for another logical explanation." See? Right there. :)

I don't trust anyone who follows ANY theory 100% and doesn't question. I still question science, but it has provided more logical answers to me than religion has.

[sam i am]

No, if you read my post, I said I never take anything to heart 100%, that I look at things with a skeptical eye, and only believe things that sound logical to me until they can be proven differently.

That, by no means, is "blindly following." If I said "DARWIN IS RIGHT AND YOU ALL ARE WRONG, EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO EVERYTHING HE HAS TO SAY BECAUSE HE IS INFALLIBLE LOL" then that statement would be justified.

"I'm likely to believe [a scientist's theory], with the combination of me seeing other forms of evolution, and him being a credible source for me. I don't believe scientists lie about their findings, because it's easy to disprove in the scientific world; if they ever did lie about their findings, it would soon be disproven. That doesn't mean I blindly follow the idea of macro-evolution 100%, if it is disproven, I will look for another logical explanation." See? Right there. :)

I don't trust anyone who follows ANY theory 100% and doesn't question. I still question science, but it has provided more logical answers to me than religion has.

Hey, Queen. Have you ever been in love? With the "wrong" guy?

You were being "illogical," but fully following your heart (faith in that person despite logic and evidence). Does this make you more likely to understand faith?

If not, then you can disregard my query.

How about the rest of you...ever followed your heart over your head?

[QueenAdrock]

Nope, I've only had one boyfriend my entire life, and it's been going on almost 5 years.

I understand faith, that one would follow his heart over their head. I don't think anyone should do that completely; one should have a little of both, otherwise extremism occurs and that usually leads to bad things.

[Humiliation]

VERY interesting logic. Follow it to it's conclusion :

At various points in the history of science, "scientists" (so called "experts") could, with all science behind them, explain that the world was flat, or that the heart was the center of our intelligence, or that the sun rotated around the earth.

One of the problems with science is that it is constantly evolving to meet new technology or observation. It has no way to quantify or measure emotion or aspiration or truly unexplainable phenomena.

You have FAITH that those with more "knowledge" are able to explain things "to a tee," but you have no way of KNOWING, yourself, if these things are true. You BELIEVE them to be true because someone else can explain them to you. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me, with scientists as the priests and yourself as the flock, blindly following along.

See, we're really not all that different, utlizing your "logic?"

Just some more to ponder in this debate.
You're bashing your own argument. At least with our we have more proof from pictures and whatnot when all you've got is a bible which anyone could write.

All I'm going to say is you have to be pretty stupid to not believe in evolution because the devil put them there to turn us away from faith

[Medellia]

That God sounds delicious. (y)
I think I accidently killed that God when I dropped my bowl on the tile floor in my kitchen. :(

Please don't smite me! :eek:

[QueenAdrock]

I know I shouldn't eat thee, but....

*chomp*

mmm...Sacrilicious

[sam i am]

I understand faith, that one would follow his heart over their head. I don't think anyone should do that completely; one should have a little of both, otherwise extremism occurs and that usually leads to bad things.

Good. You've come a long way if you acknowledge that you have faith and are not solely a biological being.

[sam i am]

You're bashing your own argument. At least with our we have more proof from pictures and whatnot when all you've got is a bible which anyone could write.

All I'm going to say is you have to be pretty stupid to not believe in evolution because the devil put them there to turn us away from faith

I never said I didn't believe in evolution.

I never said that all I have is the Bible as the basis for my faith.

I have MUCH more to base my beliefs on than that. Do you?

[racer5.0stang]

why do you people still argue with Racer about evolution?


I thought we were debating?

I had a nightmare last night, in which I discovered that the Jews were the right ones, and had been right all along.

The God that the Jews believe in is the same as Christians. Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

I was only saying you could still be christian and believe in evolution.

No, you can't. Read Genesis.

ANiamsl there have evolved to better suit their surroundings.


ANIMALS have ADAPTED to their environment.

Maybe you''re just stupid then. We've found the remains of "half humans" which are slowly changing into humans from apes. Also we're 99% (or near enough i can't remember) the same genetically. We're not THAT different

YOU might not be that different.

At least with our we have more proof from pictures and whatnot

You should take those pictures in to the science community. Tell them you went back in time and took your trusty camera. Be sure to deny any use of Photoshop.

All I'm going to say is you have to be pretty stupid to not believe in evolution because the devil put them there to turn us away from faith

The reason for Christians (assuming that is who you are referring to by mentioning the devil) not believing in evolution is because the bible says other wise. God created this entire plane of existance.

It seems to me that it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution than to believe that God created life.

[Funkaloyd]

I was only saying you could still be christian and believe in evolution.No, you can't. Read Genesis.
Can you eat shellfish, or believe that raped virgins shouldn't marry their attackers and still be considered a Christian?

[mathcart]

Ok- I'm getting into this a little late and really I want no part of whatever place this discussion has gone to: I just want to throw in my 2 cents on "Intelligent Design" specifically as it relates to being a teachable "theory" in a science classroom(my job, incidentley). I.D. it has been pointed out to me is fundamentally NOT science, if for no other reason than the fact that science, at its essence seeks to ask and actively search out answers to questions we do not know the answers to. It is never OK to just say- well we don't know the answer, so we'll never know the answer. This is the opposite of scientific inquiry. I.D., however, does essentially just that- give a neat little explination for the currently unexplainable. This is at best lazy and at worst an absolute affront to the historical significance of doing science by asking questions that take a long time to answer. I think this is my point while I.D. desreves equal consideration in a philosophical discussion or a religous discussion, it is not science, thus has no place in the science classroom, or in that discussion.

[racer5.0stang]

Can you eat shellfish and still be considered a Christian?

Sure I can eat shellfish but I cannot eat green eggs and ham or the forbiden spam. Maybe tomorrow I'll have lamb or just bread and jam.

[Ali]

Sure I can eat shellfish but I cannot eat green eggs and ham or the forbiden spam. Maybe tomorrow I'll have lamb or just bread and jam.Racer goes nuts.