Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Angelo]

http://venganza.org/

Even though I think Creationism should not be taught as an "alternate theory" to evolution it's really a poor argument. Creationists really only want to teachers to go so far as to speak of a a God and not try to describe it. What's worse, it isn't funny. I have to admit they are at least trying to meet half way on that, but I can't even give them that because Creationism is not an "alternate theory" amongst the majority of scientists, only theologins. You can't mix schools of thought.

Yeah to me it's simply "not science." And I don't think Creationists would even claim it is. They're not doing this in the name of science, they're doing it because they think it threatens their religion or their beliefs to have science telling their kids that God didn't literally create the world the way it says in the Bible. So when their kids come home from school, they have to tell them "that evolution thing you heard in science class is the work of the devil, and the evil scientists who are all out to destroy Jesus' kingdom." But still, when you're kids are out there in the real world, eventually they'll figure it out. So they want to give their point of view some believability--because honestly, I don't know about you but, the whole Creationist standpoint isn't believable at all.

[Bahumuth]

The halfling is a chaotic evil thief, not a mage.

Yeah to me it's simply "not science." And I don't think Creationists would even claim it is. They're not doing this in the name of science, they're doing it because they think it threatens their religion or their beliefs to have science telling their kids that God didn't literally create the world the way it says in the Bible. So when their kids come home from school, they have to tell them "that evolution thing you heard in science class is the work of the devil, and the evil scientists who are all out to destroy Jesus' kingdom." But still, when you're kids are out there in the real world, eventually they'll figure it out. So they want to give their point of view some believability--because honestly, I don't know about you but, the whole Creationist standpoint isn't believable at all.

No, all Creationists do calim their beliefs to be respected as science and to be taught in science class. The great majority of them would have it in place of evolution. The problem is there is absolutely nothing that can give credence to the "young earth" theory. Creationism only criticizes scientific methods without generating any kind of positive evidence. Dionsaurs lived only a few thousand years ago and carbon dating misdates them because carbon dating is bunk. They don't try to explain why carbon dating is wrong; it's just wrong. And they leave things out like how could have so much fossil fuel then? Or they'lltake a scientific theory they don't understand and use it in a way "the scientists didn't think of," like trying to prove evolution couldn't happen because the second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. They take this to mean nothing can ever get more complex, but we are not in a closed system. Life is generated from the heat of the sun, which gains more entropy than earth loses.

I saw this news show about a 6 year old who rapped about history, saying that Columbus and Darwin were "blood suckers." The news channel acted like it was unfair to both (pretending these were her ideas and not her mother's). I would go with Columbus being a parasite, but Darwin? He may have become a little more agnostic, but he was still basically a Theist, and there's nothing he did personally that could warrant such an attack. It's not like he was part of an atheist conspiracy.

People seem to naturally take ideas on the basis of authority of the person rather than on the evidence of the theory. If someone doesn't like the idea, then attack the person. But it's not like Darwin was the first person who ever thought of it any more than Copernicus was the first person to postulate that the earth rotates around the sun. I'm sure there were many before him, but an idea takes off when enough people are willing to accept it.

[Angelo]

No, all Creationists do calim their beliefs to be respected as science and to be taught in science class.

It's so incredibly retarded. It's not science. If they push enough, I would concede that the science classes tell the kids about every possible evidence against evolution. But to cross the line to actually teaching them specifics about Creationism is really stupid.

Case in point:

Take someone who has never heard the creation story. Give them the (sometimes falsified) evidence such as "human footprints next to dinosaur footprints," and see how close they get to concluding the creation story. My guess is they won't even necessarily come to the conclusion of existance in God--just that the Earth is a young place.

I saw this news show about a 6 year old who rapped about history, saying that Columbus and Darwin were "blood suckers." The news channel acted like it was unfair to both (pretending these were her ideas and not her mother's). I would go with Columbus being a parasite, but Darwin? He may have become a little more agnostic, but he was still basically a Theist, and there's nothing he did personally that could warrant such an attack. It's not like he was part of an atheist conspiracy.

Bloodsuckers in what way?

People seem to naturally take ideas on the basis of authority of the person rather than on the evidence of the theory. If someone doesn't like the idea, then attack the person. But it's not like Darwin was the first person who ever thought of it any more than Copernicus was the first person to postulate that the earth rotates around the sun. I'm sure there were many before him, but an idea takes off when enough people are willing to accept it.

And it's not like evolution destroyed creationism. Creationism had already seen a severe decline after the beginning of Geology that showed that the earth is very old.