Cool Beans – FYI
11 September 2005 by BobReally weird when you see something like this hit the media: In the beginning there was the Flying Spaghetti Monster
In an open letter to the Kansas Board of Education in July, Mr Henderson wrote: “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.“I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
He ends his letter with the telling comment: “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.”
12 September 2005, on 8:33 am
“overwhelming observable evidence?”
Gee, I wonder when THAT will be presented, because it hasn’t yet.
12 September 2005, on 12:33 pm
Yeah, I’m really tempted to talk about evaluating evidence with someone who thinks that “…real science is testable and falsifiable…evolution… can’t be observed, tested, or falsified…”
12 September 2005, on 11:43 pm
The part about “logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence” is him talking about evolution. There is three parts, ID, FSM, and evolution. Evo is the third and last one mentioned. He wasn’t claiming overwhelming observable evidence for FSM or ID.
13 September 2005, on 1:49 am
I guess Frank and John are the resident geniuses at this site
13 September 2005, on 12:17 pm
Anon — given the easily understandable nature of the original post you might have assumed that I understood completely the assertion made there with regard to the “overwhelming observable evidence.” You then, in turn, would have understood that I was rejecting the notion that there is such evidence to support evolution. My fellow genius, John, (while disagreeing with me) certainly understood me. You can’t observe evolution, as the process (were it valid) would take beyond your lifetime to happen. The fossil record flies in the face of the theory, and evolutionists just have no answer for the Cambrian Explosion. The fact of the matter is this: there is just as much evidence to support the notion of a creator as there is to support evolution. ID does not claim to understand the nature of that creator (i.e. the God of the Bible) it just looks at the evidence and draws a different conclusion than evolutionists.
I’ve been coming to this site for some time and usually find the debate intelligent and cordial. The fact that you felt the need to explain an easily understandable post for us and then followed it up with a condescending comment speaks more about your lack of IQ than it does ours.
13 September 2005, on 1:12 pm
Hey Frank! Have you ever had the flu? Virus mutations, which happen constantly, are evolution in action, smart guy. That’s just one quite easily observable example of evolution. See also, bacterial resistance to antibiotics and observable instances of speciation.
Evolution is happening literally everyday right under your ignorant nose. I guess you are the resident genius here, if by genius you mean idiot.
13 September 2005, on 1:35 pm
Nobody disputes micro evolution. I virus that mutates is still a virus (you knew that, right?) Show me the virus that mutates into a frog, THEN you’ve got a case for what Darwin was talking about.
13 September 2005, on 1:40 pm
Show me the virus that mutates into a frog, THEN you’ve got a case for what Darwin was talking about. — And there ya go: Darwinian evolution in a nutshell. Thanks for the laugh, Frank. You really kill us here over at GIFS. Keep up the good work.
13 September 2005, on 2:33 pm
Y’know Bob, it may be cute to talk down to me like that but your response (while it appears to refute mine) offers no challenge to my statements whatsoever. If you want to condescend to me at least have the courtesy to come with your information to back it up. It’ll help your credibility.
Now, in that spirit I offer this: anonymous has said bacteria mutate before our very eyes. Indeed, we’ve seen them become resistent to antibiotics. No argument. However, we’ve never seen them change into anything that is NOT bacteria. Let’s take E. Coli, for example. We have more than 100 years of work with E. Coli behind us. At 20 minutes per generation time that’s 2.20 million generations of E. Coli that have been witnessed. And despite scientists “encouraging” or “forcing” mutations on the bacteria, it has yet to produce anything other than E. Coli.
Macroevolution? You tell me.
13 September 2005, on 3:36 pm
I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I thought you misunderstood what Henderson said and I was trying to clarify for you. But I was mistaken. Later.
13 September 2005, on 3:42 pm
And that second post, at September 13th, 2005 at 1:49 am, was a different Anon. It wasn’t me.
13 September 2005, on 4:03 pm
It was the second one that led me to believe you were being condescending. Otherwise, I likely would have taken your post at face value. My apologies.
13 September 2005, on 4:11 pm
No prob dude. I mistakenly thought you were pro-evo and was asking for evidence of FSM or ID.
14 September 2005, on 12:41 pm
“overwhelming observable evidence?”
Gee, I wonder when THAT will be presented, because it hasn’t yet.
Gee, I wonder if I’m dealing with a Creationist now? When confronted with the fact that, yes, there is undeniable proof, Frank says:
You can’t observe evolution, as the process (were it valid) would take beyond your lifetime to happen. The fossil record flies in the face of the theory, and evolutionists just have no answer for the Cambrian Explosion. The fact of the matter is this: there is just as much evidence to support the notion of a creator as there is to support evolution. ID does not claim to understand the nature of that creator (i.e. the God of the Bible) it just looks at the evidence and draws a different conclusion than evolutionists.
This might be one of my favorite comments ever on a blog:
Nobody disputes micro evolution. I virus that mutates is still a virus (you knew that, right?) Show me the virus that mutates into a frog, THEN you’ve got a case for what Darwin was talking about.
Here’s what I love about creationists – first Frank says …I was rejecting the notion that there is such evidence to support evolution, but then takes a step back and says Nobody disputes micro evolution….
Show me the virus that mutates into a frog, THEN you’ve got a case for what Darwin was talking about.
This is the most positively ridiculous argument made by Creationists.
Frank, you apparently don’t understand the concept of evolution. If a virus turned into a frog, it would quite rightly REFUTE the fact evolution happened as we believe. You did know that, didn’t you? Evolution doesn’t even remotely begin to predict such things. You can learn what evolution is here, as it is obvious you don’t understand what the fuck you are talking about.
Biological evolution by layman’s definition: a change in a gene pool of a population over time. A proven fact. Just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria or insect repellant proof bugs. Observed instances of speciation here. And before you get all excited and say “yeah, but a plant/bacteria never turned into another ‘kind’(such a creationist term!) of plant/animal, see here. Are a wolf and a dog the same “kind”, Frank?
The fossil record flies in the face of the theory… That’s either bullshit or you are ignorant. Plain and simple. Start here to learn a little bit about the fossil record, then before you get all excited to tell me “there are gaps”, science has that covered here.
and evolutionists just have no answer for the Cambrian Explosion…. Again, I’ll get my big boots on to wade through your bullshit. Answer? Read here.
The fact of the matter is this: there is just as much evidence to support the notion of a creator as there is to support evolution.
Show me. No, don’t poke holes in evolution, I want to know this:
*Who is this designer? Is it God? Is it aliens? Invisible Pink Bunny Rabbits? Or Giant Lizards?
*How do you propose to prove who/what this designer is?
*How did the designer operate?
*What process was used?
*You will need to provide new evidence proving how speciation and mutation occur
*Why did the designer create flaws in our design?
Answer these questions, and you will equal the scientific theory of evolution. Until then, it is just your religion. I’ve backed all my claims up. You do the same, with references, or fuck off.
14 September 2005, on 7:08 pm
I wanna go bowling with Rockstar. Nice post, dude.
15 September 2005, on 8:15 am
Thanks Bob! I hate to sound so pissed, but people like this drive me nuts for 2 reasons:
1. They simply listen to what they’re told and regurgitate it for all the world to hear
2. They try to push the brainwashing off on other people (ie schools and the like).
Frank- I’m not trying to sound hateful, but experience tells me one needs to use harsh language to get through to a Creationist, as the Faith runs strong in them, padawan…
24 September 2005, on 6:51 pm
Indeed, since the day e.coli was first worked with in a laboratory, there has been continuous scientific observation of an unbroken chain of every single generation of the bacteria that occurred over that time. Hm. Nice numbers game. I forget, tell me again where this century-long e. coli experiment is being performed?
24 September 2005, on 6:59 pm
So if you accept microevolution, as creationist wackos and IDiot liars generally do (strategically, because if they didn’t their arguments would look as moronic to laypeople as their actual arguments already do look to the scientifically literate). If the genetic makeup of a species can change over time, and one of the things that can be clearly be modified by these genetic changes is the reproductive system, and given a vast number of generations through which this genetic change occurs, it would seem to me that to argue that macroevolution and speciation cannot occur would require demonstrating that there is a mechanism which prevents it.
What is that mechanism?
28 September 2005, on 12:11 pm
Frrraaaaaannnnkkk…I’m waaaayyyytinnng…