Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.... I thought it was just me.

I kept waiting for the "record skip" noise and for this to turn into a comedy.

Cell phone zombies? Seriously?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

I would want someone to sit as co-pilot and help me with that spaghetti of instructions right at the end there.

Oh, okay. So using profanity pointlessly, repetitively, and boringly is his shtick. I guess I won't allow it to annoy me too much.

Fun meal if you're not watching your carb intake. I wonder what crunchy spaghetti is like.

Maybe it's a good thing I don't have kids, because that looked slightly abusive to me.
It reminded me of my mother repeatedly lying to me as a kid and telling me I LOVE spaghetti squash, I just don't remember, and forcing me to have some. I HATE spaghetti squash, and now I also don't trust my mother so much.

Guy makes some seriously awesome mild spaghetti sauce too.

No need! Just install a strong magnet in the base of your microwave and drop a handful of ball bearings in your spaghetti.

Yeah but is it going to automatically stir my god damn spaghetti so the outer rim isn't molten lava while the core is frozen solid?

TOP TEN REASONS

1) Small pot

2) Small kids that slurp longer pieces

3) Awesome snappy noise and stuff'

4) Me strong like Hulk prove by smashing spaghettis smash smash

5) Visualizing your mean annoying boss's neck while twisting crick crack shatter

6) Teaching child division and/or fractions

7) Having less sophisticated in-law over who would otherwise maul linguini with multiple passes of a knife before eating

8 ) Telling parable of "united we stand divided we fall" to less patriotic younger generation representatives, and needed a prop.

9) Secretly mad at spouse and prepping mysterious "I don't know how all those spaghettini shards on the floor happened but it's your time to sweep here's the broom" petty vengeance

10) Destroying stuff is fun.

Why the Hell would you break all your spaghetti before it gets cooked???

Your video, The secret of snapping spaghetti, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Exactly. He got all the girls. Watch him and learn.

If this arbitrary value comes out more than 2 Einstein was wrong. And the answer is.... 2.5 woohoooo! Anything practical on the horizon?

Also strings + entanglement = Flying Spaghetti Monster confirmed.

@shinyblurry

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, how come all the planets look like meatballs?

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?