Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster"
m (→Mockery and Pastafarianism?: Hello Sid. I'd like you to meet my friend, Mr. Question Mark.) |
(ID asserts naturalism can't explain the origin of life) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{QuoteBox|The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".}} | {{QuoteBox|The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".}} | ||
I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Food for thought== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Evolution-Molecular-Knowledge/dp/0976639408 Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design]) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:02, April 9, 2007
Somebody screwed up the references.
Mockery and Pastafarianism?
The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".
I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --Sid 3050 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Food for thought
Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.
- If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design)
This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --Ed Poor 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)