Refuting Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
There is a new conjecture sweeping the nation. Its known as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, the idea that a Flying Spaghetti Monster creature (which we've already refuted the possibility of its philosophical existence in an earlier review) planted evidence for Evolution all over the world and continues to do so upon a discovery. The only problem with this idea is, where is the evidence for Evolution? I have been on Panda's Thumb, Talk Origins, Glenn Morton's (Dr. Strawman's) sites and I can't find a single piece of legitimate evidence for Evolution. Already, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism fails as a Scientific proposition, and has been falsified. The "logical conjecture" that Bobby Henderson refers to on his FSM page is simply not a logical conjecture at all. It shows how logical Bobby Henderson is though. The equivalent of an illogical being who is incapable of rational thought. I believe Jorge from Theology Web said it best. "Intelligent Design may have some problems, its still a new concept. But I think the core of Intelligent Design is spot-on." Many ID sites promote the teaching of both Evolution and ID. My view on the matter is to eliminate Evolution from public schools and replace it with ID. Lets eliminate Evolution from the Scientific classrooms and put Charles Darwin's Naturalism in the Philosophy books where it belongs.
posted by Casey Powell @ 5:09 AM
3 Comments:
Negative, thats the wrong perception to take on the matter. I am not suggesting that ID is a matter of religion at all. I'm saying it is verifiable enough to consider as a valid Scientifically observable proposition which should be taught in the classrooms. I have seen absolutely no valid evidence for Evolution. It is all greatly refuted by Creationistic sites like Answers in Genesis and True Origins. The counters on Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins are simply based around primarily ad hominem attacks against Creationists that tend to provide a viewpoint supporting politics, which I am entirely against. Keep Science Scientific and out of the court systems. If you notice, the main objective that these Evolutionistic sites are supporting are that "Creationists lie...thats what they do, they lie!" or "Look at the Dover case!" They create ad hominems and strawman arguments and those are illogical and invalid arguments. Unfortunately I have looked at both arguments and I strongly disagree with the Evolution claims, simply because they are too narrowminded to consider. A PHD argued against me about Evolution one time and came to the conclusion that "since its been around since 1930, its Science." This is a fallacy of the argument from antiquity. He used Glenn Morton's Creationistic falsehood site to try to get me to agree with his proposition. However, if we look at Dr. Morton's argument, it does not support Dr. Morton's conclusion (review Dr. Strawman arguments). Bad use of supporting evidence and lack thereof. He also argued that IC was not a good measure of Science, but I'm sure our candidate here wouldn't mind having his blood clotting system reduced if that were the case. Its easy to argue against ID, but when we look at it from practical terms, it makes sense that you can not argue against the science of ID. Basically, its based around unwarranted conclusions. Dover did not impress me as far as the background story behind the case goes, though I will state that the Intelligent Design side was not ready for a case at all. This will need to be improved upon in the upcoming trials to come. Behe's responses to critics are often overlooked and his credibility is often overlooked based on this court case. Again, this is political and the stance should belong only in the courtroom. Evolutionists will bring in presuppositional claims against Intelligent Designers because of the outcome of the case and the negative reviews that Behe has gotten (which he has responded to and I should probably provide back up for....this will be soon to come I assure you). I'm sure many at Cornell University as well as from my research at William & Mary would support having Intelligent Design taught in the classrooms as a Science. I find Evolution to be more ideological than many people make it out to be. Its a philosophical viewpoint that is truly not observable in nature as far as I've seen and is attached to the philosophical viewpoint of Naturalism. Evolution has been falsified for over 100 years with the falsification of spontaneous generation. Not many are aware of this. While ID is not valid in your opinion and I will respect it as your opinion, I have seen some significant improvements in the area of Intelligent Design and the ongoing research that is being done within its research. If your scientific nature would allow you to accept it, would you again like for me to provide the Scientific evidence for Intelligent Design? There is so much it is beyond the scope of this response! I assure you, Mr. Henderson's perception on ID is very false. What you are looking at are the generals behind ID. I would recommend studying the specifics underlying ID and then we may have something to talk about. www.ideacenter.org is a wonderful site to review. Evolution has general standpoints too. The problem I see is that their evidence doesn't follow the conclusion. Intelligent Design has certain problems, but they will be resolved in the near future if the research goes where I see it suggests it will. Basically, Evolutionistic arguments are starting to look more like the flat earth society claims more and more. Their inability to structure a valid argument shows to me that the theory itself is in more trouble than Evolutionists would have you believe. Many other European countries and middle eastern countries (according to recent polls) are starting to come to this conclusion as well. 64% of the population in Europe is opposed to having Evolution taught within its public schools. I believe 75% of the schooling systems don't teach it. Thats astronomical. The Chinese make claims about the impossibility of Evolution, and how they are always open to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. One Chinese scientist claimed, "The problem in America is that America's Scientific system is opposed to anything Anti-Darwin. Our system is." You will often hear another argument that holds no water whatsoever. "Creationists use false numbers and quote out of context." Now this is a problem because how are you going to prove this. The burden of evidence is against he who accuses. The accuser here has to formulate evidence of this, and they seriously can not do so. This becomes an equivocation fallacy. My suggestion is to not necessarily have religion taught within the classrooms. I see a way around this. We should get back to the way the Ancient Greeks looked at Science as its focus around Philosophy. I believe that they were spot-on (and no I am not talking about Anaximander's sun-mud hypothesis either). We should recognize that there is an Intelligent Designer and the associative Science based around it will follow. The way the world is today can be explained by Rene Descarte's separation of the natural and supernatural. We need to put humpty dumpty back together sort to say, this would make Science a little bit more clearer and not ruined by postmodernistic skeptical claims surrounding our society today.
Now in regards to me completely deleting and abandoning Evolution, that is because I disagree entirely with Evolution. That is one area that Intelligent Design and I would disagree on. That is the Creationistic side within me. I believe everything was created by God and that the design process and the changing that is seen throughout nature is based not on the presumptions within the nature of Evolutionistic claims, but rather within the way God created us. If we take a look at the arguments by Evolutionists, they always claim that a Big Bang Theory was the origin of the universe and that with this Big Bang, a mass of energy came together and POOF the world became as it was today. We know the odds against this happening are 1 in 8.3 trillion quadrillionth Naturalistically. Math is on our side there. Another problem is, where does the water come from? Water is not energy. If we mix water and energy what do we get? We get an electrical shock and destruction occurs. So energy + water = no creation of the universe randomly and naturally. Thats one factor overlooked by Evolutionists. To this they will claim, "well we just haven't discovered that yet." Right. You never will discover it either. If we look back in History, we notice that the arguments for these types of issues are recurrent and repetitive. Basically Revisionistic attempts to change the language of humankind have existed since the beginning of time. A revisionist one time told me that a nunnery meant a brothel at one point to try to prove that language was not fixed. What I found was that the word's meaning was not brothel in the 1800s. It was in fact slang for brothel at the time. So it would equate to something like me stating, "Yo what up big cheese" and someone stating, "Wow, they cheese used to mean people back then." Thats obviously a fallacious claim. Cheese was used to refer to people in a slang manner, but it did not directly mean that people were existed as composed out of cheese. The truth be told, Science has not impressed in the form of Evolutionism. It is the same old story, in a different attempt to prove it and it always gets turned away. We will simply NEVER know how the processes behind Evolution work as far as origins, no matter how many speculations that Evolutionists will try to come up with. I claim their arguments to be "Evolution of the gaps." They don't know how it happened, so they claim Evolution had something to do with it. To this they would respond that our goal is not to find the origins. Again then, how many times do we see textbooks with the Big Bang Theory and Evolution together and equated. Thats a misrepresentation of what Evolution is supposed to be and an equivocation of the evidence. Try to check this stuff out sometime with an open mind and I think you'll be shocked at the results.
Casey Powell
Negative, thats the wrong perception to take on the matter. I am not suggesting that ID is a matter of religion at all. I'm saying it is verifiable enough to consider as a valid Scientifically observable proposition which should be taught in the classrooms. I have seen absolutely no valid evidence for Evolution. It is all greatly refuted by Creationistic sites like Answers in Genesis and True Origins. The counters on Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins are simply based around primarily ad hominem attacks against Creationists that tend to provide a viewpoint supporting politics, which I am entirely against. Keep Science Scientific and out of the court systems. If you notice, the main objective that these Evolutionistic sites are supporting are that "Creationists lie...thats what they do, they lie!" or "Look at the Dover case!" They create ad hominems and strawman arguments and those are illogical and invalid arguments. Unfortunately I have looked at both arguments and I strongly disagree with the Evolution claims, simply because they are too narrowminded to consider. A PHD argued against me about Evolution one time and came to the conclusion that "since its been around since 1930, its Science." This is a fallacy of the argument from antiquity. He used Glenn Morton's Creationistic falsehood site to try to get me to agree with his proposition. However, if we look at Dr. Morton's argument, it does not support Dr. Morton's conclusion (review Dr. Strawman arguments). Bad use of supporting evidence and lack thereof. He also argued that IC was not a good measure of Science, but I'm sure our candidate here wouldn't mind having his blood clotting system reduced if that were the case. Its easy to argue against ID, but when we look at it from practical terms, it makes sense that you can not argue against the science of ID. Basically, its based around unwarranted conclusions. Dover did not impress me as far as the background story behind the case goes, though I will state that the Intelligent Design side was not ready for a case at all. This will need to be improved upon in the upcoming trials to come. Behe's responses to critics are often overlooked and his credibility is often overlooked based on this court case. Again, this is political and the stance should belong only in the courtroom. Evolutionists will bring in presuppositional claims against Intelligent Designers because of the outcome of the case and the negative reviews that Behe has gotten (which he has responded to and I should probably provide back up for....this will be soon to come I assure you). I'm sure many at Cornell University as well as from my research at William & Mary would support having Intelligent Design taught in the classrooms as a Science. I find Evolution to be more ideological than many people make it out to be. Its a philosophical viewpoint that is truly not observable in nature as far as I've seen and is attached to the philosophical viewpoint of Naturalism. Evolution has been falsified for over 100 years with the falsification of spontaneous generation. Not many are aware of this. While ID is not valid in your opinion and I will respect it as your opinion, I have seen some significant improvements in the area of Intelligent Design and the ongoing research that is being done within its research. If your scientific nature would allow you to accept it, would you again like for me to provide the Scientific evidence for Intelligent Design? There is so much it is beyond the scope of this response! I assure you, Mr. Henderson's perception on ID is very false. What you are looking at are the generals behind ID. I would recommend studying the specifics underlying ID and then we may have something to talk about. www.ideacenter.org is a wonderful site to review. Evolution has general standpoints too. The problem I see is that their evidence doesn't follow the conclusion. Intelligent Design has certain problems, but they will be resolved in the near future if the research goes where I see it suggests it will. Basically, Evolutionistic arguments are starting to look more like the flat earth society claims more and more. Their inability to structure a valid argument shows to me that the theory itself is in more trouble than Evolutionists would have you believe. Many other European countries and middle eastern countries (according to recent polls) are starting to come to this conclusion as well. 64% of the population in Europe is opposed to having Evolution taught within its public schools. I believe 75% of the schooling systems don't teach it. Thats astronomical. The Chinese make claims about the impossibility of Evolution, and how they are always open to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. One Chinese scientist claimed, "The problem in America is that America's Scientific system is opposed to anything Anti-Darwin. Our system is." You will often hear another argument that holds no water whatsoever. "Creationists use false numbers and quote out of context." Now this is a problem because how are you going to prove this. The burden of evidence is against he who accuses. The accuser here has to formulate evidence of this, and they seriously can not do so. This becomes an equivocation fallacy. My suggestion is to not necessarily have religion taught within the classrooms. I see a way around this. We should get back to the way the Ancient Greeks looked at Science as its focus around Philosophy. I believe that they were spot-on (and no I am not talking about Anaximander's sun-mud hypothesis either). We should recognize that there is an Intelligent Designer and the associative Science based around it will follow. The way the world is today can be explained by Rene Descarte's separation of the natural and supernatural. We need to put humpty dumpty back together sort to say, this would make Science a little bit more clearer and not ruined by postmodernistic skeptical claims surrounding our society today.
Now in regards to me completely deleting and abandoning Evolution, that is because I disagree entirely with Evolution. That is one area that Intelligent Design and I would disagree on. That is the Creationistic side within me. I believe everything was created by God and that the design process and the changing that is seen throughout nature is based not on the presumptions within the nature of Evolutionistic claims, but rather within the way God created us. If we take a look at the arguments by Evolutionists, they always claim that a Big Bang Theory was the origin of the universe and that with this Big Bang, a mass of energy came together and POOF the world became as it was today. We know the odds against this happening are 1 in 8.3 trillion quadrillionth Naturalistically. Math is on our side there. Another problem is, where does the water come from? Water is not energy. If we mix water and energy what do we get? We get an electrical shock and destruction occurs. So energy + water = no creation of the universe randomly and naturally. Thats one factor overlooked by Evolutionists. To this they will claim, "well we just haven't discovered that yet." Right. You never will discover it either. If we look back in History, we notice that the arguments for these types of issues are recurrent and repetitive. Basically Revisionistic attempts to change the language of humankind have existed since the beginning of time. A revisionist one time told me that a nunnery meant a brothel at one point to try to prove that language was not fixed. What I found was that the word's meaning was not brothel in the 1800s. It was in fact slang for brothel at the time. So it would equate to something like me stating, "Yo what up big cheese" and someone stating, "Wow, they cheese used to mean people back then." Thats obviously a fallacious claim. Cheese was used to refer to people in a slang manner, but it did not directly mean that people were existed as composed out of cheese. The truth be told, Science has not impressed in the form of Evolutionism. It is the same old story, in a different attempt to prove it and it always gets turned away. We will simply NEVER know how the processes behind Evolution work as far as origins, no matter how many speculations that Evolutionists will try to come up with. I claim their arguments to be "Evolution of the gaps." They don't know how it happened, so they claim Evolution had something to do with it. To this they would respond that our goal is not to find the origins. Again then, how many times do we see textbooks with the Big Bang Theory and Evolution together and equated. Thats a misrepresentation of what Evolution is supposed to be and an equivocation of the evidence. Try to check this stuff out sometime with an open mind and I think you'll be shocked at the results.
Casey Powell
Great question though goat and an insightfully honest response. I would recommend a closer evaluation of evidence and if you would like to seek it out, I've got some cool sites for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home