The legal right of students to learn FSMism, in schools along side of evolution. Options

[sadolakced acid]

http://www.venganza.org/

read.
enjoy.
join.

i have been touched by his noodleness.

(FSMism stands for flying spaghetti monster ism)
( a law suit is going down against the kansas school board of education if ID is taught and FSMism is not. )
(what fun)

oh and for the debate:

do you think FSMism should be taught along with ID and evolution in schools?

[illumineering]

http://www.venganza.org/
read. 
enjoy.
join.

...and learn how pasta primavera has supplanted hydrogen as the most abundant element from spaghettio shiva - keeper of the sacred earth wisdom.

[Mulder]

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.

I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

lol. all hail the flying spaghetti monster.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I don't think it should be taught. That theory is not accepted by masses. Anyone could come up with a ridiculous theory, and that doesn't mean it should be taught to everyone.

[aera]

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.

how did they come up with that?

it should not be taught in school. imagine how the little kids would react 0o

[sadolakced acid]

^

it's written down.

this has the same amount of proof as ID does.

[aera]

^

He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

then how do they know he existed. there may be written accounts, but what if they made it up?

[sadolakced acid]

^ the written accounts are the direct word of the flying spaghetti monster and cannot be challenged.

[aera]

^and what if someone pretended to be the flying spaghetti monster? and how did they find the texts?

[sadolakced acid]

^ the texts are the word of the flying spagghetti monster and to say otherwise is basphemous.

[aera]

^ok, fine. but how did they find the texts? how can they prove it's him? and how is it that we can read it? if it is from when the universe was created, it wouldn't be in english.

[sadolakced acid]

^ the FSM spoke to the man who let us know that FSM is correct.

[aera]

^i think you're avoiding my questions...

how did they find the texts?
how can they prove it's him?
how is it that we can read it?

if it is from when the universe was created, it wouldn't be in english.

[sadolakced acid]

^ to question the FSM is blaphemous.

the texts were created recently and published. the person who did the physical writing of the texts was listening to the direct word of the FSM.

by the way, are you christian?

[aera]

i was going to ask you that. no, i'm atheist. so i don't believe in the "god created the universe" thing. evolution seems more logical, but i don't really believe that either.

[illumineering]

^i think you're avoiding my questions...

how did they find the texts?
how can they prove it's him?
how is it that we can read it?

if it is from when the universe was created, it wouldn't be in english.

Ummm...I hope you aren't taking this literally. It's a satire meant to criticize the faults of christianity through the use of sarcasm/ridicule. Your questions are definately being answered. I don't think you're comprehending the answers. Mr. Acid be nice to this poor child!

[sadolakced acid]

i was going to ask you that. no, i'm atheist. so i don't believe in the "god created the universe" thing. evolution seems more logical, but i don't really believe that either.

ahh well, the FSM does illustrate the absurdity of the whole ID argument.

it'd be like walking into a church and declaring that the bible school should teach evolution.

[aera]

^hahaha. i'd like to see that..

[antix10_kos]

FSM....I am laughing so hard right now...

I live like 20 miles away from Kansas, in Missouri and the whole intelligent design thing is HUGE around here...all the religious right wingers are saying "oh no, we can't let you teach kids that evolution exists UNLESS you ALSO teach them that ID is a REAL and VALID explination of human existance." It's all a bunch of crap. You send your kids to school to get educated, not programmed. Program them on your own time. You can tell your kids whatever want after the last school bell rings but it won't kill 'em to hear something different during school hours, will it??

One last thing:

The same bill that would rise the status of ID to legit scientific explination would also POTENTIALLY allow students to be excused for health and sex ed. classes if the classes did not conform to the new standards i.e. present "spontanous creation" and ID as valid and accepted explinations for pregnancy and human life...I'm sure there's tons of other bs stipulations in the bill as well.

I feel bad for Kansas kids....

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ I wouldn't doubt that could be spreading here very soon. We had a creationism/evolution debate in Bio last year and there were a lot of angry people.

[racoons > you]

i think it is AS legitimate fo rthe FSMists to demansd that their faith is taught, as it is for the IDerites...

[coconutter]

Wow, If I was in that school I would be cracking up during class and I'm pretty sure all the other kids would be laughing or sitting there bewildered. It's school not the "oh so true" news paper. This is like that kabbalah thing.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ FSMism is no more ridiculous than Christianity. The flying spaghetti monster = God. Really. They just replaced some words.

[mai_z]

^ FSMism is no more ridiculous than Christianity. The flying spaghetti monster = God. Really. They just replaced some words.

Touche


One of my teacher does a really awesome way of teaching theories like this, where he'll teach a theory (evolution, christian creationism...etc) for a week or couple days, and then go onto another one (ususally in chronological order) and hold some discussions. It helps the students realize how a lot of these theories come around etc...and how none are reallly concrete.

[LordAwesome]

the main point here is to examine the scientific procedure. A scientific theory is based on facts and research. Evolution fits into this. ID simply does not. It isn't really even the issue of seperation of church and state. ID is just not a scientific theory, so it has no place in a classroom based on science. i won a debate last year against my teacher on this because my debate partner was almost a mute and never did a damn thing. She asked me why i didn't just bring up church and state, it was simple. I didn't want an easy typical win. Plus this is something i actually care about. I'm an atheist, and i would find it an insult to the theory of evolution for ID to be taught alongside it. Just like when they put the LRE kids in the classes and they just make noises and distract the studenst...not to sound to harsh, but it's a lot like that...poor evolution.

[illumineering]

the main point here is to examine the scientific procedure. A scientific theory is based on facts and research. Evolution fits into this. ID simply does not. It isn't really even the issue of seperation of church and state. ID is just not a scientific theory, so it has no place in a classroom based on science. i won a debate last year against my teacher on this because my debate partner was almost a mute and never did a damn thing. She asked me why i didn't just bring up church and state, it was simple. I didn't want an easy typical win. Plus this is something i actually care about. I'm an atheist, and i would find it an insult to the theory of evolution for ID to be taught alongside it. Just like when they put the LRE kids in the classes and they just make noises and distract the studenst...not to sound to harsh, but it's a lot like that...poor evolution.

Your teacher quite possibly let you think you won by not engaging the illogical nature of your argument. You actually would lose the debate based on your own definitions.

First point

the main point here is to examine the scientific procedure.

Second point

ID is just not a scientific theory, so it has no place in a classroom based on science.

Third point

I'm an atheist, and i would find it an insult to the theory of evolution for ID to be taught alongside it.

You broke your own rule by stepping outside the content of the first point in the third one. You also opened the counter argument of the validity of non-scientific explanations of the origins of life and the universe.

The null value of atheism relative to ID/creationism is in actuality another non-scientific rationale for your argument.

I would not tout yourself as the winner of the debate in the future. It is my belief that you were allowed to save face and simply not humiliated for the sake of a victory.

I didn't want an easy typical win.

Good for your because the GRACE and maturity of your teacher far outweighs the obvious ego-driven need you have for superiority at your own expense. Learn the value of humility before someone thrashes you in public.

[LordAwesome]

my point is that even overlooking the religious conotations of ID it still has no place in a scientific class, as it is not based upon fact. and i compared it to a retard screaming in the back of the class, it would be a distraction. just as your over critical analysis of my post was a distraction from that point. Seperation of church and state is used too much, and it's too broad. so your psychoanalysis really has nothing to do with the validity of my statements...it's actually just a logical fallacy...argumentum ad hominem.