The problem with EVC

yes because the other side is so open-minded when it comes to other worldviews that disagree with theirs. I think this quote shows that this could be easily attributed to your side as well faithonly at least science isn't willfully ignorent to keep thier faith from shattering under the pressure of evidence that doesn't agree with the bible
if the creationism side has evidence i'd like to see it, and not some ad hoc evidence that ignores counter-evidence or tries to change universal law - this is purely ad hocEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

No the concept of FSM,was that if the teaching of ID is a valid explantion for the origins of life and the universe then the teaching of FSM is just as valid. Being that FSM is silly and has no evidence, just like ID does.
its satire of the idea that a belief that a all powerful being that we can't see or hear or observe is science is the point robin.
you could replace FSM with thor zeus or moloch (if you like the burning of babies i guess). And the argument would still be the same as the ID argument, IE: absurdto make myself clearer i guess, if you are going to teach ID, FSM is just as valid since the argument comes down to gods and not, evidenceEdited by ReverendDG, : just a bit more info

ask IDists, they are the ones trying not to claim godditthe fact that in the end it comes down to god, means that anyone can claim anything because they just destroyed any objectivity they have

I think in many words angle is saying it is satire, but since its some of your views, its not funny to you
which is how satire works, i mean i've read satire of nerds that i found far from funny but its still satire.
and yes it effectively represents ID - at least how most people precieve ID - basicly another form of goddit

i think robin is trying to force logic into religious beliefs, but beliefs arn't really logical (or else we wouldn't have people who believe there was a worldwide flood and rapid evolution of animals still)

how is it nutty, its basicly saying, if we teach ID in science class,we might as well teach that a giant monster made out of noodles created the universe, since ID is about as plausable as that.
thats the jist of the FSM, its satire of the fact that why is this belief valid but the others arn't? why not teach something just as off the wall as ID. they both do not really add anything to science, nor teach anythingEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

do you know what satire even does?
it shows the stupidities of ideas, ID just happens to be what its about
if you are claiming i never gave serious thought about god, then you have no clue what you are talking aboutthis just shows that ID isn't science at all, its religion and should never be taught in school, and this is bloody off OT for the FSM, since it was a satire of ID as a valid scientific theory
go read why the guy bloody did it

then he is not understanding the point of FSM, its a satire of wedging things into places where they don't belong

wow nice non-answer there faith this means what?
can i get something other than a non sequitur
all i see is you just don't get the jokeEdited by ReverendDG, : typos

And you misunderstand the point of the FSM, its not about god its about ID being precieved as being science and being wedged into science classes as a theory .When in reality it comes down to a creator god to work. since they try to keep the designer an unknown, why not make it a FSM? its still valid as much as people think ID is when they believe the designer is god
IOW its not remotely about god its about IDs validity over other beliefs, or at least saying ID is about as valid as FSM

it depends on the word usage if the person is talking about science, then they mean a fact is something with so much overwelming evidence that to deny it as a fact would be considered insane i agree that the manners of folks can be rough, but you need to look on thier side, you basicly have a convaluted argument that relies on factors that most people don't consider factors or are irrelevent or basic objections with no foundation
sometimes having an argument where no one sees the others point or moves the argument along, and everyone says the same things over and over again gets tiresome i think