Satirical Monsters More Competition for Darwin

The Ledger ^ | December 11, 2007 | John Chambliss

[Mr. Jeeves]

How true. But hordes of Huckabee supporters are going to be gunning for you, now. ;)

[Shryke]

Um...do you mean “opponents”?

[Elpasser]

Ridicule and satire ... always a reliable substitute for scientific debate and discussion.

Wonder how funny that will be for these guys when they DO meet their maker? (which they inevitably will)

[ASA Vet]

source?

[SubGeniusX]

[ontap]

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

[ari-freedom]

evolutionists can’t back their claims in the lab so they make jokes. ah the fruits of public education at work

[Shryke]

Why do you hate the Savory Baby Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[ASA Vet]

Your source:

Registrant Organization:All About God Ministries, Inc.

[Nathan Zachary]

"The TOE doesn’t address origin."

Sure it does. Nothing exploded and is the building block of everything. Those rocks formed out of nothing, then came alive. Because the rocks couldn't see where they were going, they developed eyes, and once those rocks had eyes, they could see that they weren't really going anywhere, so they developed legs, or fins. (depending on which you think came first, swimming rocks or walking ones) Then the living rocks became hungry, but because they were the only "living" thing, there was no food, so some of the living rocks turned into food. Then the living rocks realized they couldn't eat the food, so they developed mouths. But they found the food rock hard to chew, so they developed teeth. Then they realized they couldn't swallow, so they developed throats. I'm sure you can figure out the rest. Just use your imagination, practically any evolution model will work. If you believe life came to earth from some other gallaxy, just remember it had to form from nothing exploding and forming everything as well, expoded nothing turning into gases, gases forming matter, matter forming rocks, rocks coming alive after mysterious space rain clouds came and rained on them for millions/billions of years.

[Constantine XIII]

LOL, reading the comments, it’s clear that some people need to learn to take a f’n joke. XD

In this thread: people who never smile.

[ari-freedom]

“Why do you hate the Savory Baby Flying Spaghetti Monster?”
-

who came up with that quote? ah I know! millions of years of evolution! to say otherwise would be a science stopper.

[Buggman]

So, basically the idiots who think this is a valid counter-argument are ceding the argument that ID should be taught in science class, but insist on having a theological debate about the Designer's nature and form in that same class.

Funny, that.

[DaveyB]

The ID question is not one of "is it valid science?" but what is valid science. For centuries the scientific method, as proposed by Bacon, was an inductive approach to test ideas by subjecting them to repeated, and verified observations. Bacon, a devout Christian, thought this method would help men to take dominion of God's creation and glorify him. The modern methods that some call science, including evolution and ID, are not limited by the inductive approach of classical science. The new methods lack observable, repeatable and verifiable data. While it is true that creationism is not scientific, neither is evolution or ID. But it must be stated emphatically, just because something falls outside of the limits of science does not make them false. Unscientific does not equal false and scientific does not equal true. However using the scientific method (classical) some ideas can be proved to be false; however, no ideas can be proved to be true - such are the limits of induction.

[Shryke]

So, basically the idiots who think this is a valid counter-argument are ceding the argument that ID should be taught in science class, but insist on having a theological debate about the Designer's nature and form in that same class. Funny, that.

Let's see all your research PROVING that the FSM didn't create everything. I want to see it. In a bowl. With alfredo sauce.

[ontap]

Here’s another one : by the way the source I quoted you is almost word for word from Darwins book.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evoldef.htm

[Nathan Zachary]

"Your source:"

Oh, so only sources written by evolutionists are to be valid, right?
Never mind the scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design, even though the complexities found in biological science suggests intelligent design. Evolutionary belief eg faith means that all you have to do is keep throwing that handfull of dirt up in the air, eventually despite all odds it will land that one time as a fully loaded Lexus.

[Non-Sequitur]

As opposed to those who debase science by presenting theories as fact.

You mean like the Theory of Flight or the Theory of Gravity?

[Nathan Zachary]

"Let's see all your research PROVING that the FSM didn't create everything. I want to see it. In a bowl. With alfredo sauce."

First, cough up some grant money. Then I'll prove to you, that the FSM itself was in fact created by the evolutionary process of eggs falling in wheat fields, trampled and mixed together by dinosaurs, and rained on, trampled some more, squeezing this now biological goo through small holes in the earths crust, zapped by a freak lightening storm, becoming a living thing.

[SubGeniusX]

Theory of Relativity