Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The divine Flying Spaghetti Monster

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The divine Flying Spaghetti Monster

    Think I'm kidding?

    Originally posted by NY Times
    The Web site Boingboing.net mounted a challenge: "We are willing to pay any individual $250,000 if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
    What more do you need? Seriously.
    "I can't seem to bring myself to say, 'Well, I guess I'll be toddling along.'
    It isn't that I can't toddle. It's that I can't guess I'll toddle."

    --Robert Benchley (1889-1945)

  • #2
    Originally posted by welo
    Think I'm kidding?



    What more do you need? Seriously.
    Well, like it or not, the guy does have a valid point. Intelligent design should be taught in schools, however it should be a vague and undefined concept. And it should not be slanted towards christianity, islam, or hinduism, or any other belief. It should just be the very general and philosophical approach to the fact that "something" might have made us.

    I think something made us...don't you?

    Comment


    • #3
      The problem is there isnt one shred of real evidence to suggest someone made us. Beliefs have no place in the classroom.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Zonex
        The problem is there isnt one shred of real evidence to suggest someone made us. Beliefs have no place in the classroom.
        Experts on intelligent design would disagree with you...and their arguments can be quite compelling.

        Let me guess, you are an athiest? Isn't that a belief? Oh, sorry, it's a lack of a belief...and therefore doesn't need to be supported....LOL

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by free thinker
          Experts on intelligent design would disagree with you...and their arguments can be quite compelling.
          LOL
          experts
          LOL again

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Zonex
            LOL
            experts
            LOL again
            LOL indeed...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Zonex
              The problem is there isnt one shred of real evidence to suggest someone made us. Beliefs have no place in the classroom.
              Matter can not be created.
              Big Bang Theory.

              MGM out

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MGM
                Matter can not be created.
                Big Bang Theory.

                MGM out
                not sure what u are referring too but we don't know and will probably never know anything before the first few hundreds of a second after the big bang
                what was there before, etc

                after the first few hundreds of a second we do have an awful lot of info of how matter formed from what was going on with the quagmire of neutrinos and all sorts of exotic elementary particles
                i think a helium atom first formed about 10 seconds after the big bang
                Last edited by Zonex; Thu 1 Sep '05, 3:49pm.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zonex
                  not sure what u are referring too but we don't know and will probably never know anything before the first few hundreds of a second after the big bang
                  what was there before, etc

                  after the first few hundreds of a second we do have an awful lot of info of how matter formed from what was going on with the quagmire of neutrinos and all sorts of exotic elementary particles
                  i think a helium atom first formed about 10 seconds after the big bang
                  ya, who cares what happened in the first few seconds? LOL, not like that could shed some light on the situation...

                  *removes self from conversation*

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MGM
                    Matter can not be created.
                    Big Bang Theory.

                    MGM out
                    No, matter cannot be created or destroyed under ordinary processes. Under a nuclear process it can be.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by free thinker
                      ya, who cares what happened in the first few seconds?
                      heh
                      did i say first few seconds?
                      not that it will matter to you but look again
                      better yet, educate yourself on the subject then get back to me
                      plenty of data out there you can read up on

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Zonex
                        heh
                        did i say first few seconds?
                        not that it will matter to you but look again
                        better yet, educate yourself on the subject then get back to me
                        plenty of data out there you can read up on
                        Trust me. I know more on the subject than I am letting on. But I'm certainly not going to debate it here. Yes honey, I have a college education, well actually, a couple of them. Anyway, since you are only interested in slinging insults and debating the semantics of my loosely-intended term "first few seconds". Nah, not worth it.

                        *feels a comment like: "what? a degree in underwater basketweaving? LOL LOL LOL" coming soon...*

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I have always wondered if underwater basketweaving is actually possible. Wouldn't it go all soggy so not be weavable?
                          Christopher Padfield
                          Web Based Helpdesk
                          DeskPRO v3.0.3 Released - Download Demo Now!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have no problem with intelligent design being taught in school as an elective philosophy class, but it does not pass the criteria to be considered a Science.

                            In order to be a Science, first hypotheses must be formed based on observations (it loosely passes this step, if you're a believer), then the hypotheses must be tested (impossible with Intelligent Design), then the results of the tests (pass or fail) must be reproducable by others.

                            Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. There are no legitimate scientists debating the issue of whether ID is a competing theory with Evolution. The only ones debating this are Christian Fundamentalists. If you need proof that this is nothing more than a repackaging of Judeo-Christian Creationism, try to find any non-Christians who are pushing this as a Science.
                            Last edited by Martin; Thu 1 Sep '05, 8:26pm.
                            Webmaster:
                            @forumz

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              These religion vs science debates never convince one side or the other of things. But here's one misconception rampant among people I talk to that have religious beliefs.

                              Theories.
                              They always say, well thats just a theory. This is only second to 'what about the missing link". There is no such thing as a missing link!

                              Anyways on to this theory thing....

                              Theories do not mean something is not a fact. They are called theories for a variety of reasons. Things are both theories and facts.

                              Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is the theory that tries to explain it.
                              Now many of you are saying. No way! Evolution is not a fact! I'm sorry to say that it is - just like GRAVITY is a fact! You are not floating in the air are you?
                              See the same systems apply. Gravity is both a fact and a theory.

                              I presume you agree with gravity right? Well here's the theory part of it.
                              First there was Newton who wrote a widely accepted theory. It explained how it worked and how it affected the planets and such.
                              Later on Einstein revised that theory and changed it from mass attracts mass to mass distorts space. Newton was wrong. Einstein to this day has been proved right. Bending of light and hundreds of other experiments have been unable to find holes in Einsteins version of how gravity works.

                              Now that you understand what a theory is and you accept gravity, why cant you accept evolution? Because it clashes with your beliefs? You shouldnt go picking and choosing things because they clash with your beliefs. Facts are facts. Mechanisms explaining how things work may change but the facts always remain.
                              Last edited by Zonex; Thu 1 Sep '05, 9:07pm.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X