Comments on: Pastafarianism

By: sarah

sarah — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:00:30 +0000

beautiful. according to the bible (which we all know is absolutely 100% every word correct)jesus is the son of god, god created man in his own image, which, by theory of evolution, who knows what the hell that was. it is entirely possible for our beloved flying spaghetti monter to have birthed our saviour!t makes as much sense as anything else in the all-knowing bible.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:44:22 +0000

Good Lord…wireless at busstops…whatever will they think of next?!

-cvj

By: erc

erc — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:23:53 +0000

…wireless…obviously…sorry…

By: erc

erc — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:22:50 +0000

Thanks Rob! Cheered up my wait for the bus! (Don’t you just love woreless?)

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:37:48 +0000

you to can help convert more people to the pastafarians by clicking on this link

http://www.gophergas.com/funstuff/flyingspaghettimonster.htm

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:28:41 +0000

I could not help being struck by this line from

http://www.nwcreation.net/cosmology.html

namely

“challenging the hypotheticals” [of the Big Bang theory]. Am I alone in being reminded of … W ?
You know, Mark’s W, ratio of pressure to density, ahem…good name for a blog by the way….

By: cecilia

cecilia — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:43:29 +0000

Sean’s alma mater will be hosting a pro-evolution lecture next month. No debate, just an explaination of how it works.
PS his alma mater is Villanova, which has a darn good astronomy department.

By: Clifford

Clifford — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:29:30 +0000

Yes. One is science, the other is not.

-cvj

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:24:59 +0000

I missed this editorial from my local paper this past Saturday and became aware of it only because today, the paper felt obliged to print four responses from ID adherents:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=91257&ran=98338

It is not necessary to print the responses here because they parrot the strict ID line about science’s supposed inability to prove its theories. What these people seem to miss is that while scientific theories have accurately predicted certain facts later discovered, science accepts that it does not currently have all of the answers to the beginnings of the universe and life. ID, on the other hand, presupposes its most important fact, the nature of origin.

By: John G

John G — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:08:47 +0000

Tony Smith and John Fudjack are two people who handle both spirituality and physics well unlike Creationism and ID.

Here’s a little from Smith (whose physics model is similar to Lee Smolin’s bosonic string-like M-theory):
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/ArchMandMus.html

Here’s John Fudjack interviewing Brian Greene:
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html

My website, which coincidently uses the 6 days of creation as a metaphor, has more links to Smith and Fudjack (and my two papers in Fudjack’s journal).

Thanks, John